Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ADANI POWER LIMITED AND 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 4

2016 (4) TMI 1027 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition - Seeking direction for refund of central excise duty - Petitioner purchased coal from respondent No.5 and being a SEZ Unit, claimed exemption from payment of excise duty on such coal - Held that:- whatever be the ground for challenging the adjudicating authority and appellate order, the fact remains that both the Excise Authorities are situated at Orissa. Further appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner would be competent before t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stion of alternative remedy being available before the concerned CESTAT, on the question of territorial jurisdiction, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. - Petition disposed of - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19319 of 2015 - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR ADV WITH MR. UDAY JOSHI WITH MR. VINAY BAIRAGER FOR M/S. TRIVEDI & GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE, MR VIVEK B GUPTA, ADVOCATE, MR. P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the respondents primarily on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. In order to appreciate such ground and the response of the petitioners to the same, we may record relevant facts. The petitioner No.1 is a unit situated in Mundra Special Economic Zone. The petitioner had purchased coal from respondent No.5 one Mahanadi Coalfields Limited situated at Orissa. Being a SEZ Unit, the petitioner claims exemption from payment of excise duty on such coal. The applications for refund of such duty w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the authorities had doubt about jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners' applications for refund. This doubt was based on the fact that the unit was situated in SEZ and the question, therefore, in the minds of the authorities was whether the Central Excise Authorities or the SEZ Authorities would be competent to entertain such refund claims? However, the petitioner was armed with the judgement of this Court in case of Messrs Anita Exports & anr vs. Union of India and ors reported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioners contended that in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can have extra territorial writ. In the present case, the coal was consumed by the petitioners at Mundra. The event of non-excisability of the coal arises on account of the unit being situated in SEZ area. Thus, substantial portion of the cause of action has arisen in the writ jurisdiction of this High Court. He placed reliance in case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version