2019 (6) TMI 510 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred? HELD THAT - On perusal of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that there is no express bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the jurisdiction is impliedly barred. This question is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DHULABHAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 1968 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT laid down the principles to decide whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section 9 of C.P.C. and held that Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. When the present case is analyzed in light of the stated binding and authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as already stated, it is clear that the Assessment Orders in each of the cases is an appealable order. When a specific statutory remedy is provided, especially in a tax statute, which is to be exercised within a prescribed time limit, the said remedy necessarily excludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a Civil Court. Otherwise, it would be possible for parties to circumvent and bypass the statutory mechanism for resolution of disputes, including the time limit for availing such remedies. This is a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to ensure proper administration of justice without permitting parties to circumvent the dispute resolution mechanism established under the tax statute - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the issuance of suit summons in three original suits based on appealable assessment orders under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The Civil Revision Petitions challenge the issuance of suit summons in three original suits concerning appealable assessment orders under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents filed civil suits seeking declarations for exemption from Excise Duty and nullity of the Assessment Orders, instead of appealing the said orders. The petitioners argue that the civil suits are barred by law, citing judgments that imply a bar on filing civil suits when detailed provisions for appeal exist under the Central Excise Act. The respondents counter by suggesting the petitioners should have filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint. They also reference Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, highlighting the need for notice before proceeding against the Central Government or its officers.

The main issue revolves around whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred. The Court observes no express bar in the Central Excise Act and refers to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to determine jurisdiction under Section 9 of C.P.C. The Court emphasizes that when a specific statutory remedy is provided, especially in a tax statute, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded to prevent circumvention of the statutory mechanism for dispute resolution. The Court cites authoritative judgments to support the view that the Assessment Orders being appealable preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by a Civil Court.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the Civil Revision Petitions are maintainable, as the statutory remedy provided under the Central Excise Act for appealable orders excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure proper administration of justice and prevent circumvention of the established dispute resolution mechanism under the tax statute. Consequently, all three Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and no costs are awarded.