The Bombay High Court ruled on the issue of territorial jurisdiction regarding excise duty rebate claims. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable before the Bombay High Court because the Revisionary Authority that passed the impugned orders was situated within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court further emphasized the doctrine of merger, noting that the original adjudication orders have merged with the orders of the Revisionary Authority, thus allowing the petitions to be filed in Mumbai despite the original lis arising in other states.

1. Petitioners: Major companies including Volvo Group India, Siemens Ltd, ABB Limited, Yamaha Motor India, and Indorama Synthetics challenged the rejection of excise duty rebates by the Revisionary Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Respondents: The Union of India and various tax authorities were named as respondents.

3. Preliminary Objection: Respondents objected to the maintainability of these petitions before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the original adjudication orders were passed by authorities in different states (Karnataka, Goa, Tamil Nadu, etc.), making the petitions more suitable for the respective high courts in those regions.

4. Petitioners' Argument: Petitioners argued that since the Revisionary Authority’s office is located in Mumbai, a significant part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, giving them the right to file petitions here under Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution.

5. Court's Findings:

   • Doctrine of Merger: The Court held that the original adjudication orders had merged with the Revisionary Authority's orders, making the latter the operative orders. As these orders were passed in Mumbai, the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.
   • Forum Conveniens: The Court rejected the respondents’ argument based on the principle of forum conveniens, stating that the Revisionary Authority’s decision is a significant part of the cause of action.

6. Legal Precedent: The Court relied on rulings from the Supreme Court, such as Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which affirmed the litigants' right to choose the forum based on where part of the cause of action arises.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The jurisdiction of High Courts to issue writs when part of the cause of action arises within their territorial limits.

2. Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Provisions for revision of orders by the Central Government concerning excise duty rebates.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court held that, under the doctrine of merger, once an appellate or revisionary authority passes an order, the original order merges with it, and the appellate order becomes the operative one. Since the Revisionary Authority was located within Mumbai, this gives the Bombay High Court jurisdiction to hear the petitions. The Court also upheld the principle that litigants have the right to choose between the jurisdictions where part of the cause of action arises.