IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the location of the Revisionary Authority and the doctrine of merger allow petitioners to file writs in the court where the authority is situated, affirming their right to choose their forum.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. In all these six petitions listed today respondents raised a preliminary objection in relation to the maintainability of these petitions before Bench of this Court. The preliminary objection is that petitioners are required to file writ petitions before the High Courts within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication orders were passed. Having heard the counsels, we shall demonstrate that the preliminary objection is not sustainable. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the limited question of jurisdiction. We are, at present, not concerned with the merits of the disputes between the parties for the matter has not yet been heard by us on merits. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the facts in detail, except to the extent required to determine the issue of jurisdiction.

2. In all the petitions, except Writ Petition No.5120 of 2022, the orders in original, the orders in appeal and the orders passed by the Revisionary Authority, who is also a formal party, were against respective petitioners. In Writ Petition No.5120 of 2022 the order in original was in favour of petitioner but the order in appeal and the order of Revisionary Authority, against which the petition is filed, were against petitioners.

3. In all the petitions the averment is that the impugned order passed by the Revisionary Authority has been issued within the jurisdiction of this Court. The office of the Revisionary Authority is within the jurisdiction of this Court and, hence, the entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose the petition.

4. The following Table gives the details of place of the adjudicating authorities who have passed the adjudication orders and in whose territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts they may fall :

5. Petitioners have approached this Court against order passed by the Revisionary Authority constituted under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act). Petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of orders passed by the Revisionary Authority rejecting the rebate claim filed by petitioners. Petitioners had filed a rebate claim for rebate of customs duty paid on the raw material purchased under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 6th September 2004. The show cause notices were issued rejecting the rebate claim on various grounds. We need not go further into those details to decide the issue of jurisdiction.

6. In matters relating to excise duty and service tax, most appeals against orders of the Departmental Authorities lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 35B of the Excise Act. The Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B, however, carves out certain exceptions. It says orders relating to the subjects specified in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B would not be appealable to the CESTAT under Section 35B. Those orders would be amenable to revision under Section 35EE by the Central Government. One such order would be relating to matters of rebate. Those will not be