* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + CEAR No. 2 of 2004 % Date of Decision: April 30, 2007 SHANTI KUMAR R/O 167A, POCKET A MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-II, DELHI-110092. ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Shekhar Vyas versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-III, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE NEW DELHI. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Adarsh Priyadarshi for UOI Mr.H.D. Talwani for R-2 Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR CEAR 2/2004 Page 1 of 6 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes MADAN B. LOKUR, J. (ORAL) The Assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 29th August, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in E. Appeal No. 791/2002-NB(S). 2. The Petitioner is a physically handicapped person and purchased a vehicle from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (for short referred to as MUL) . The invoice is dated 12th May, 2000. 3. In terms of a notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1st March, 2000, the Petitioner was entitled to a concessional rate of excise duty on the car, being a physically handicapped person. However, since MUL had cleared the vehicle on payment of full duty, the Petitioner applied to the excise authorities on 18th October, 2000 for a refund of central excise duty. 4. By a letter dated 24th October, 2000, the Petitioner was informed by an order passed on 24th October, 2000 by the Deputy Commissioner, CEAR 2/2004 Page 2 of 6 Central Excise, Division-1, Gurgaon, Haryana that since the duty had been paid by MUL, it is for the manufacturer alone to apply for a refund of duty and the Petitioner was requested to approach MUL for further necessary action in the matter. On the basis of this order, the Petitioner approached MUL for a refund of duty. MUL then filed a refund application on 30th October, 2000 before the excise authorities at Gurgaon, Haryana but that application was rejected by an order dated 24th March, 2001 again by the Deputy Commissioner at Gurgaon, Haryana. The reason for rejection was that MUL would be unjustly enriched if the refund was granted. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection, the Petitioner preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed an order on 22nd November, 2001 in which it was held that the Petitioner was not an aggrieved person and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Petitioner approached the Tribunal and by an order dated 29th August, 2002, the appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected on the same ground. CEAR 2/2004 Page 3 of 6 7. The Petitioner then approached this Court by filing CW No. 7834/2002. By an order dated 22nd March, 2004, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was disposed of on the ground that the Petitioner had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy provided under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence the writ petition could not be entertained. Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to file an appropriate petition, as contemplated by the Central Excise Act. 8. The Petitioner has, pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, preferred the present petition under Section 35H (1) of the Act. 9. A preliminary objection has been taken by learned counsel for the Revenue to the effect that under the provisions of the Act, the appropriate jurisdictional High Court would be the High Court of Punjab & Haryana because the order in original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, Haryana. 10. It is now well settled that in circumstances as the present, the jurisdictional High Court will be the High Court within whose jurisdiction the order in original has been passed. This was the view taken by this Court many years ago in Seth Bansari Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), (1978) 113 ITR 817. CEAR 2/2004 Page 4 of 6 This view was followed in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Technological Institute of Textile, 1998 VII AD (Delhi) 386. 11. Following the above decisions, this Court has reiterated the view in Bombay Snuff P. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Union of India, 2006 I AD (Delhi) 291 that the jurisdictional High Court would be the High Court within whose jurisdiction the order in original was passed. 12. We find that in the present case, the order in original was passed by the authorities at Gurgaon, Haryana both in the case of the Petitioner as well as in the case of MUL. Therefore, without even going into the question whether the Petitioner would be a person aggrieved or not, the appropriate High Court in which the Petitioner can raise the grievance is the High Court of Punjab & Haryana within whose jurisdiction the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is situate. 13. We find this to be a peculiar case where the Petitioner, prima facie, appears to be entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification and did make an application for refund on that basis. However, he could not get the benefit of that notification merely because the duty had been paid by MUL but when MUL applied for a refund of duty, the claim it was denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, thereby CEAR 2/2004 Page 5 of 6 effectively denying the Petitioner the benefit of the notification granting concessional duty. The Petitioner is the unfortunate loser both ways. 14. In any case, since we do not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter, it is not possible to entertain this petition. 15. Dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, J APRIL 30, 2007 V. B. GUPTA, J kapil CEAR 2/2004 Page 6 of 6