1980 (7) TMI 106 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit in Civil Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Interpretation of the Trade Notice in relation to the notification dated 4th May, 1961.
4. Exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction by statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit in Civil Court:

The primary issue in this case was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable in the Civil Court. The Union of India contended that the suit was not maintainable due to the provisions of Sections 35, 36, and 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The trial court had held that the suit was maintainable, but this judgment was challenged in the appeal.

The appellate court referred to the principles laid down in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 S.C. 78, which provided guidelines on the circumstances under which a suit would be maintainable in a Civil Court. The court emphasized that "the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is all-embracing except to the extent it is excluded by an express provision of law or by clear intendment arising from such law."

The court concluded that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, particularly Sections 35 and 36, provided a comprehensive code for redressal of grievances, thus excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court stated, "The provisions therefore, in our opinion clearly intend that the jurisdiction of the civil court be excluded."

2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority:

The court examined the relevant sections of the Act, specifically Sections 35, 35-A, 36, and 40, to determine the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. Section 35(1) allows any person aggrieved by a decision or order of a Central Excise Officer to appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs or another designated Central Excise Officer. Section 35-A provides for revision by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and Section 36 allows for revision by the Central Government.

The court noted that "the powers given to the appellate authority are very wide," allowing it to make further inquiries and pass orders confirming, altering, or annulling the decision or order appealed against. The court concluded that the appellate authority had full jurisdiction to decide the questions involved in the present suit.

3. Interpretation of the Trade Notice in Relation to the Notification Dated 4th May, 1961:

The plaintiff-respondent sought a refund based on the notification dated 4th May, 1961, which provided an exemption from the basic excise duty. The Union of India argued that the Trade Notice No. 50/1961 issued on 9th May, 1961, clarified the notification and laid down the manner of calculating the exemption.

The trial court had held that the Trade Notice was without jurisdiction and could not affect the notification. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that "the Trade Notice dated 9th May, 1961 only explains the import and lays down the procedure for the enforcement of the notification dated 4th May, 1961." The court emphasized that the appellate authority under the Act had the power to interpret both the notification and the Trade Notice to provide effective relief.

4. Exclusion of Civil Court's Jurisdiction by Statutory Provisions:

The court reiterated the principles from Dhulabhai's case, particularly propositions (1) and (6), which are relevant for determining the exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction. The court noted that Section 35(2) of the Act attaches finality to orders passed in appeal, subject to revision under Section 36. The comprehensive appellate and revisional mechanisms provided by the Act indicated an intention to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

The court concluded that "the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be held to have been excluded by the provisions of the Act." The court also clarified that Section 40, which protects actions taken in good faith under the Act, does not imply that other suits would lie in the Civil Court.

Conclusion:

The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not maintainable in the Civil Court and emphasized the adequacy of the remedies provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 24-2-1967 were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout.