Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) IN this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 4th July, 2008 passed by the appel late Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. At the threshold the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of this High Court in entertaining the appeal, as a result whereof we are constrained to hear such point at first. Factually, it appears that the goods were imported at Delhi. "The port of registration" is as follows: The port of registration was indicated as New Delhi and ICD Tughlakabad." Reply to the show-cause notice was also given at Delhi. Adjudication was done at Delhi. The most of the goods were avail able in a company at Okhla, New Delhi. The appellant's contention is that it is carry ing on its business at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to en tertain the appeal.
(2.) UPON carefully considering the argument put forth by Mr. A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appellant., when we have called upon Mr. S.P. Kesarwani, learned Counsel ap pearing for the respondent, he has cited before us a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Ambica Industries v. Commis sioner of Central Excise1. Paragraph-17 of such judgment is very important for us, which is as follows: "17. There cannot be any doubt what soever that in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its terri torial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen there within but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate Court exercises a jurisdiction over Tribunal situ ated in more than one State. In such a situation, in our opinion, the High Court situated in the State where the first Court is located should be considered to be the ap propriate appellate authority. Code of Civil Procedure did not con template such a situation. It pro vides for jurisdiction of each Court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of a State. It is in conceivable under the Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdic tion of the District Court would be exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save and except in such matters where the law specifically provides there for." Having carefully gone through such judgment, we are of the view that the meaning of the 'first Court', as incorporated in the aforesaid quoted portion of the judgment, is virtually meant for the first authority or forum before whom dispute is likely to be resolved. It is beyond doubt that ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in this case. Therefore, when all the causes of action arose at Delhi, the High Court at Delhi will be the appropriate Court for the purpose of adjudication of the matter on merit. Jurisdiction of a forum depends upon various circumstances. When jurisdiction of a forum patently lacks, there is no scope of argument. A proceeding has to be dismissed. But when ju risdiction of a forum latently lacks, order of dismissal will be formal one leaving the scope of the appeal or proceeding for the appropriate forum. Second principle will apply in this case. Having so, we formally dismiss the appeal only on the ground of jurisdiction without going into the merit keeping the right of the appellant open to approach the Delhi High Court in accor dance with law, if so advised. However, no order is passed as to costs. Leave is granted to the appellant to get back the certified copy of the impugned order upon placing a photocopy of the same in the record, so that the appellant can utilize the same for the purpose of pre ferring the appeal in the other High Court.;