Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This matter is fixed today under the heading 'Application' for the purpose of passing certain orders in connection with notice of attachment issued under Rules 9 and 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. It appears to this court, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the same has been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Gaya, Bihar. Panchnama in respect of Attachment of Movable Property was also of the appropriate officer, Central Excise Division, Gaya. The inventory was also made there. Therefore, the petitioners cannot get any relief in connection with the application as well as the main writ petition within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before this Court that the application is in the nature of interlocutory application but as and when the main writ petition will be heard he will give the appropriate answer. Moreover, the order was passed by CEGAT, Eastern Regional Bench, Calcutta in Appeal No. E/R-172 of 96 on 3-5-2000 [2001 (137) E.L.T. 397 (Tribunal)]. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction in view of the joint reading of Article 226(2), Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) According to me, at the earliest the records are to be checked up when such point of jurisdiction has been taken by the party opposing the application. I have taken note of the documents annexed to this writ petition. I find save and except the order of the Tribunal all were happened outside the territorial writ jurisdiction of this Court in Gaya, Bihar. Therefore, there cannot be any embargo upon the Court to take note of such part of draw a final conclusion even at the stage of application.;