Commissioner - Central Excise Customs And Service Tax - Vapi vs. Apar Industries LTD

Held

The Court granted permission to withdraw the tax appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission of a note seeking withdrawal, which was supported by a letter from the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Daman. This letter advised withdrawal due to territorial jurisdiction issues, specifically referencing clause (b) of section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and suggesting the appeal should have been filed before the High Court of Bombay. The Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file the appeal in the High Court of Bombay. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi, filed a tax appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against Apar Industries Ltd. The appellant's learned senior standing counsel submitted a note seeking withdrawal of the appeal. This note was accompanied by a letter from the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Daman, instructing the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was the territorial jurisdiction, suggesting the appeal should have been filed before the High Court of Bombay, in accordance with clause (b) of section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court of Gujarat has territorial jurisdiction to hear the present tax appeal, considering the provisions of clause (b) of section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Arguments: Petitioner (Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi): The petitioner sought to withdraw the appeal based on a communication from the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Daman. This communication indicated that the appeal was filed before the incorrect High Court due to territorial jurisdiction issues and should have been filed before the High Court of Bombay as per clause (b) of section 36 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner argued for withdrawal with liberty to file the same in the appropriate High Court. Respondent (Apar Industries Ltd): No arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.