1979 (3) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suits for recovery of excess Excise duty are maintainable.
2. Whether the Excise duty was correctly levied on the cotton textiles as bleached or processed fabrics.
3. Whether the suits are barred by limitation under Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Suits:
The primary issue was whether the civil suits for recovery of excess Excise duty paid by the plaintiff were maintainable. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of civil courts is all-encompassing except where expressly or impliedly excluded by law. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts but provides a comprehensive mechanism for adjudication of disputes through appellate and revisional authorities. The court referred to the principles laid down in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which state that civil court jurisdiction is excluded if the statute provides an adequate remedy. The court concluded that the Act creates special rights and liabilities and provides adequate remedies through its appellate and revisional mechanisms, thus implying the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. Therefore, the suits were not maintainable.

2. Correctness of Excise Duty Levy:
The court did not delve into the merits of whether the Excise duty was correctly levied on the cotton textiles as bleached or processed fabrics. It noted that the Excise Authorities may have committed an error in classifying the textiles, but such errors fall within the scope of the Act and are not open to challenge in a civil court. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Administrator Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, which held that mistakes in tax assessment should be corrected through the mechanisms provided by the relevant statute, not through civil suits.

3. Limitation under Section 40 of the Act:
Given the court's decision on the maintainability of the suits, it did not find it necessary to express an opinion on whether the suits were barred by limitation under Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the decrees of the lower court were set aside. Both suits were dismissed with costs throughout, based on the finding that the civil court's jurisdiction was impliedly excluded by the adequate remedies provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.