SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) This appeal, preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Services Tax, Bhubaneshwar-I, Commissionerate, is directed against the judgment dated 8th May, 2014 passed in W.P. 20905 (W) of 2011 (Vedanta Aluminium Limited and others v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission and others) [2016 (331) E.L.T. 408 (Cal.)] whereby the learned Single Judge, while coming to a finding that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, had allowed the writ petition by holding, inter alia, as under:- "For the reason discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned final order No. F-282/CE/11-SC (KB), dated 23rd September, 2011, passed by the Customs and Excise Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench, Kolkata, is set aside to the extent it purports to levy penalty on the petitioners. The concerned respondents shall forthwith, and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, refund the penalty amount paid by and/or realised from the respective writ petitioners." (page 781 of the stay application).
(2.) In this appeal the appellant has challenged the said judgment principally on two grounds, - that this High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the writ petition was without merit.
(3.) Mr. R. Bharadwaj learned advocate for the appellant submitted that as the office of the writ petitioner is situated in Orissa and as a major part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, the writ petition is maintainable. Merely because the Additional Bench of the Settlement Commission (for short "?the Commission "?) had passed the order in Kolkata does make the writ petitioner amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court.;