( 1 ) AN objection, touching the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal under section 35g of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has been raised by the respondents on the threshold. The appeal, should according to the respondents, have been filed before the High Court at Mumbai exercising jurisdiction over the place where the appellant is carrying on its manufacturing business. The fact that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) who has passed the impugned order is situate in delhi, does not, according to the respondents, confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain this appeal and determine the issues arising in the same. The facts giving rise to the controversy may at this stage be summarised as under :

( 2 ) THE appellant company has set up a factory in industrial Area, Gondia, Maharashtra, for the manufacture of snuff , which, according to the appellant, falls under Chapter heading 2404 of the Central Excise Tariff. It appears to have lodged a protest before the Assistant collector, Central Excise, Nagpur regarding the classification of snuff as an end-product for purposes of payment of duty under the Act aforementioned. The assistant Commissioner rejected the plea raised by the appellant against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who affirmed the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said two orders, the appellant preferred an appeal before the cestat, for short the Tribunal, in which the appellant succeeded resulting in the classification of snuff under Tariff Heading 2404. 60. The Joint Commissioner before whom a refund was claimed, pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, sanctioned the refund in part. That order was challenged by the Revenue before the commissioner (Appeals ). The appeal against partial refund eventually succeeded and the order made by the joint Commissioner was set aside. The appellant assailed the said order before CESTAT who affirmed the same by its order dated 19th August, 2004. This order was assailed by the appellant before this Court in an appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to apply for rectification before the Tribunal. The application for rectification so filed also failed and was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 8th April, 2005. The present appeal was then filed to assail the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal and upholding the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the plea for the grant of refund.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the location of the Tribunal whose order was under challenge in this appeal was wholly immaterial for purposes of determining the appellate forum before whom the appellant should agitate its grievance. It was urged that an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise act, 1944 can be filed in the High Court as defined under section 36 (b) of the Act. This Court was not, in the light of the said definition, competent to entertain the appeal in the present case. The High Court exercising jurisdiction over the area in which the petitioner s factory was situate in Maharashtra alone could, according to the learned counsel, entertain an appeal under Section 35-G. Reliance in support of that submission was placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Technological institute of Textile, 1998 (47) DRJ (DB ).

( 4 ) MR. Prabhat Kumar, counsel appearing for appellant, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004 (168) ELT 3 (SC) in support of his submission that while the citus of Parliament, legislature of the State or authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation could not itself constitute a cause of action for purposes of conferring jurisdiction upon the Court, the High Courts within whose jurisdiction the authorities