CEA No.52 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.52 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: April 9, 2010 M/S RADIANT SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES, ...APPELLANTS LUDHIANA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE CESTAT, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. AKSHAY BHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. GURPREET SINGH, SR.STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) In the present appeal, a demand was raised against the appellants which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, Ernakulum and the goods were declared as synthetic fibre and not synthetic waste. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the Revenue that as the adjudicating authority, Ernakulum had passed the orders confirming the demand against the appellants and the appeal was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay and the order of the Tribunal was passed in Delhi, therefore the jurisdiction of this Court is absolutely barred. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), reported as 2007 (218) ELT 161 (SC), wherein it has been held that territorial jurisdiction would be where the original authority is constituted or where the appellate authority has passed the orders. Apart from the above, in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. CEA No.52 of 2007 -2- vs. Union of India, reported as (2004) 6 SCC 254, it has been held as under:- “27. When an order, however, is passed by a court or tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statue or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellant authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellant authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellant authority.” In view of the judgement in Cannon Steels case (supra) and Kusum Ingots case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable before this Court and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted to the appellants to file an appeal before the competent Court in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 9, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE