(d) Equally, we find no substance in the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction as advanced by learned counsel for the respondents. A Division Bench of this Court has in Vishnu Security Services vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2012) 129 DRJ 661 (DB) has already held that, where the order of quasi judicial authority, which is being challenged, has been passed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the Principal Bench of Settlement Commission located at New Delhi. As such, we reject the objection of territorial jurisdiction, as raised by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The third proviso to Section 127B of the Customs Act states that “No application in this Section shall be made in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies”. As such, maintainability of the application visa-vis notification of the goods under Section 123 of the Act, would have to be assessed on the basis of goods were so notified on the date when the application was made, and not on the date when the goods were imported. Dealing with the expression “made” as implied in Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which refers to renewal of a permit “on an application made and disposed of”, the High Court of Allahabad in Kanchan Singh vs. S.T.A.T. Lucknow, AIR 1986 All 23 held that the word “made” means “filed” which implied receipt by the authority concerned. Similarly, dealing with expression “made” as contained in Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the High Court of Mysore held in Shanta Bai Devarao v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 272 (Mys.) that an application under Section 66(1) of the Act can be deemed to have been „made‟ only when that application is received in the office of the Appellate
