A.K. Sikri, J.

1. When these appeals came up for preliminary hearing, the learned Counsel for the Respondent appeared on advance notice and as demurrer raised the objections about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these appeals. For this reason, we heard the counsel for both the parties at length. The facts which have given rise to the question of jurisdiction, we may clarify that we are taking note of those facts only which are relevant for deciding this controversy eschewing other details which do not concern the subject matter at this stage.

2. The Appellant is in the business of manufacture of 'Baba' brand Scented Chewing Tobacco, Scented Ellaichi, Scented Supari, etc. Though it has a registered office at Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, one of its manufacturing units is situated in Barotiwala, District - Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Show cause notice dated 02.04.2003 was issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Shimla to the said unit of the Appellant at Himachal Pradesh under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to raise demand of short paid National Calamity Contingent Duty ('NCCD' for brevity) in the sum of 54,0004/- on additive mixture cleared during the period from 01.04.2002 to 16.10.2002 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act. Penalty under Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was also proposed. Similar show cause notice dated 19.06.2002 for another period, i.e., 01.10.2001 to 31.03.2002 and 01.04.2002 to 16.10.2002 was issued vide two separate orders in two appeals. The Appellant replied to the said show cause notice claiming exemption from the payment of duties. However, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders dated 28.07.2004 holding that the NCCD is leviable during the relevant period and confirmed the demand of NCCD along with interest and imposed personal penalty of ' 50,000/-.

4. The Appellant preferred appeal against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide order dated 30.11.2004 allowed the appeal of the Appellant and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

5. The Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE), Chandigarh felt aggrieved by the said order and approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi. This appeal of the CCE has been allowed vide orders dated 23.11.2010 thereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh and restoring that of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

6. Challenging the aforesaid common order passed in two appeals, present appeals are preferred by the Appellant under Section 35G of the Act. Objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court raised by Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Department is that the unit of the Appellant is situated in Himachal Pradesh. The said unit is paying excise to the Respondent's authorities in Himachal Pradesh on clearing the excisable goods. Dispute about the non-payment of NCCD arises in Himachal Pradesh, as the same was not paid for the period in question while clearing the excisable goods. For this reason, it is the Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Division - Shimla, which initiated the action for recovery of the NCCD by issuing the show cause notice and passing the adjudication order. He, thus, submitted that merely because the Appellate Authority like, the Tribunal has its office in Delhi, would not mean that against the order passed by the Tribunal, this Court will have territorial jurisdiction. He referred to a very recent judgment of Five Judges Bench of this Court in a batch matters with lead case M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (decided on 01.08.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 6570/2010, submitting that the said judgment is applicable on all forces i