9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Incorrect levy of central excise duty on the plaintiff. 2. Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit challenging the assessment order. Analysis: Issue 1: Incorrect levy of central excise duty on the plaintiff The plaintiff, a tobacco merchant, challenged the central excise authority's decision to levy duty on him for dealing in unmanufactured and manufactured tobacco. The central excise authorities alleged that the plaintiff had manufactured pani tobacco from non-duty paid tobacco, leading to the duty levy. The plaintiff contended that the conclusion was arbitrary, lacked evidence, and denied proper opportunity to peruse records. The trial court and the appellate court upheld the assessment order, ruling in favor of the central excise authorities. The plaintiff's argument of illegal and erroneous assessment was dismissed, leading to the second appeal. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit The central excise department raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in the civil court, citing the finality of the assessment order under Section 35(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The plaintiff argued that the levy was without jurisdiction as a non-excisable commodity was wrongly taxed. Reference was made to the case law to support the argument that the civil suit challenging the assessment was maintainable. However, the court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded in cases related to the correctness or validity of the assessment. The court emphasized that the civil court's jurisdiction should not be readily inferred, especially in matters concerning taxing statutes. The court relied on precedents to establish that challenging the assessment order falls under the jurisdiction of appellate or revision authorities as provided by the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the suit was not maintainable in a civil court due to the exclusion of jurisdiction. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the central excise duty levy on the plaintiff and determined that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the finality of assessment orders under the Act and the need to follow the prescribed appellate and revision procedures for challenging such orders.
|
