TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant was carrying on business at Visakhapatnam, choose to file this appeal before this Court. That apart even earlier the appellant moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for release of the goods in which direction was issued to the Andhra Pradesh State Excise authorities to deliver the siezed goods to the Customs Authorities of Andhra Pradesh to be kept in the wareshouses. The conduct of the appellant in filing the appeal before this Court is not appreciable and it is a definite case of "forum shopping". This is one more reason for us to hold that the appeal cannot be entertained by this Court. Appellant submitted that the appeal having been admitted in 2006, the appellant should not be compelled to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the appeal should be heard on merits. The submission deserves to be rejected, since this is not a case where the appellant has approached this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 without availing the statutory appellate remedy and in certain cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the writ petitions have been entertained and pending for a long period of time, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the goods. 5. Whether Tribunal was right in accepting the letter dated 28.02.1996 of the Flag Officer, Commander-in-Chief, when nobody was examined to prove such a letter and the appellant had not been given an opportunity to cross examine either the author of the letter, or person who is in charge of the Section, thereby, when the letter is not proved as per Evidence Act, whether the Tribunal is right in accepting the same. 6. Whether the Tribunal is right in concluding that the signature of the Naval Officers were forged and none of the Officers whose signatures is said to have been forged has been examined or any other admitted signature were not produced and compared with the alleged forged signatures. 7. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the retraction of the statement by employees of the appellant's company when admittedly none of the employees were challenged by the Department by way of examination of them or issued summons regarding retraction, when the statute specifically provides for such a contingency and therefore, Tribunal ought to have accepted the retracted statement as true and genuine and rejection of the same by the Tribunal is illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Excise Department registered a case against the appellant for alleged diversion of bonded goods including liquor. The appellant was issued notices dated 26.3.1996 and 04.04.1996, both for shortages and excesses in terms of section 72(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant submitted their reply dated 30.03.1996, for the notice dated 26.03.1996, stating that there was no shortage of goods, they had applied for release of goods described in the notice to supply the same to Naval ships, vide Shipping Bills dated 07.02.1996, goods were released by the Bond Officer on the same day, however, the same were seized by the Prohibition Excise Department, Gajuwaka. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which had ordered release of the goods and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition Excise to deliver the goods to the Customs Authorities, who were to deposit the same in the warehouse of the appellant. The appellant continued to maintain the stand that as there was no shortage, they not liable to pay Customs Duty of Rs.5,35,753/-. In respect of the show cause notice dated 04.04.1996, alleging excesses, the appellant by letter dated 08.05.1996, sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apart from imposing penalty equivalent to that of duty under Section 114A on the appellant and Rs.10,00,000/- penalty on the Manager and Rs.20,00,000/- on the Sales Representative. Apart from penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on M/s.Abid Stores, who bought the goods 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam, the appellant preferred appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) along with appeal, the appellant filed an application for stay of the order, dated 31.03.1998, along with waiver pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay pre-deposit to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the individuals to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each by order dated 11.11.1998. The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16490 of 2000, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.11.1998 and the consequential order dated 25.04.2000, by which the appeal before the Tribunal stood dismissed. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 13.10.200, since a submission was made on behalf of the appellant that they proposed to file a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. It was contended that the appellant was a licensed bonded warehouse in Visakhapatnam and the licences having been granted by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam; the fraud committed by the appellant was deducted at Visakhapatnam; the show cause notice was issued by the customs authorities at Visakhapatnam and the show cause notice was adjudicated and order in original was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by this, the appeal preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, who by order dated 10.11.1998, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. This was adjudicated and order in original was passed by the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, by order dated 31.03.1999. The appellant filed appeal as against the said order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an interim order, dated 11.11.1999. As against the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Court in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 849, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon Steels P., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion)., reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T., 161 (S.C.,). Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that though the Original Authority, the first Appellate Authority were situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the order passed by the Tribunal would be a relevant factor for the appellant choosing to file this appeal before this Court and the doctrine of forum convenience would be very relevant when part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties on the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability appeal before this Court and we have carefully perused the decisions cited at the bar. 10. The issue which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries, referred above, was relating to determination of situs of the High Court in which appeals would lie under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play, pointing out that an assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay. Furthermore, it was held that when an appeal is provided under a statute, Parliament must have thought of one High Court and it is a different matter that by way of necessity, a Tribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States, but it does not appeal to any reason that Parliament intended, despite providing for an appeal before the High Court, that appeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweet will of the party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and in the case of this nature, the cause of action doctrine may not be invoked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether its jurisdiction would be extending to three States or more or less would depend upon the executive order which may be issued. Determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court on the touchstone of Sections 35G and 35H of the Act should be considered only on the basis of statutory provisions and not anything else. While defining the High Court in terms of Section 36(b) of the Act, Parliament never contemplated to have a situation of this nature and if the cause of action doctrine is given effect to, invariably more than one High Court may have jurisdiction, which is not contemplated. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Canon Steels P., Ltd., referred supra, submitted that the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose under the Customs Act in an order under Section 130 of the Customs Act, which was dismissed by the Punjab Haryana High Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the adjudicating authority was situated at Mumbai and the High Court referred to the decision in Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd., referred supra. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries, referred supra, would be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 16. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjos Jewellers vs. Syndicate Bank, (supra), and the decision of this Court in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (supra), and submitted that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction. Firstly it is to be noted that both the cases before the Full Bench as well as in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (supra), arose out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by taking into consideration clause (2) of Article 226, the decision was rendered. Nevertheless, when there is a conclusion that the litigation amounts to forum shopping, the Court would refuse to exercise discretion to entertain a writ petition. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanu Construction Co., (P) Ltd., vs. Andhra Bank, reported in (2005) 5 CTC 721. Similarly in the case of R.Raman vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less, there was an observations by the Tribunal that the Commissioner should not decline to accept the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, the appellant pays the sum in one lump sum within one month. The appellant complied with the order and the said amount has been deposited on 22.10.2001. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by order dated 19.12.2005. Therefore, the appellant having already agitated the matter before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as against the interim order of the Tribunal and knowing fully well that the adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority are situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant was carrying on business at Visakhapatnam, choose to file this appeal before this Court. That apart even earlier the appellant moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for release of the goods in which direction was issued to the Andhra Pradesh State Excise authorities to deliver the siezed goods to the Customs Authorities of Andhra Pradesh to be kept in the wareshouses. The conduct of the appellant in filing the appeal before this Court is not appreciable and it is a definite case of forum shopping . This is one more reason for us to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
