TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund under the Customs Act - Held that:- the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. Both the 2nd respondent, original authority as well as the 3rd respondent, appellate authority are situated in Chennai, within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner - W.P.(C). No. 20136 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. For the Petitioner : Shri Sunil Nair Palakkat And K.N. Abhilash, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Adv. And Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SC JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7 order passed by the 3rd respondent, who is the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to non-availment of CENVAT credit by the petitioner, and hence, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against Ext.P7 order. It is on this premise that the present writ petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, to quash Ext.P7 order and to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to refund amounts that are allegedly due to the petitioner. 2. I have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against orders passed by the appellate authorities under the Customs Act, would be the High Court having jurisdiction over the original authority, that passed the first order in adjudication proceedings under the said Act. Applying this test, the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case would be the Madras High Court and not the Kerala High Court. I also note that against Ext.P7 order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
