1983 (10) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to excise duty concession.
2. Maintenance of log-books and records.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
4. Limitation period for filing the suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Excise Duty Concession:
The plaintiff Company claimed a concession in excise duty for the production of laminated boards using paper produced on machines Nos. 3 and 4, based on notifications exempting increased production capacities from excise duty. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rejected the claim stating that the paper used for lamination came from machines Nos. 1 and 2, which were not entitled to the concession. The Trial Judge erred in granting a declaration that the entire production of the laminating machine was entitled to the concession. The proper declaration should have been that the plaintiff Company is entitled to concession in excise duty in respect of the paper from machines Nos. 3 and 4 used for lamination, amounting to Rs. 1,18,931.08.

2. Maintenance of Log-Books and Records:
The plaintiff Company maintained an account of the paper taken from respective machines for lamination purposes. The excise authorities rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the plaintiff Company did not substantiate its plea with records. However, the Trial Judge found that the plaintiff Company did maintain such records and the excise authorities ignored this evidence. The relevant log-books were produced in the suit, and the entries were verified by the excise department. The evidence showed that the complete record maintained by the plaintiff Company was ignored by all three authorities, making their orders nullities.

3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The defendant contended that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, provided a special forum for adjudication, and the suit was not tenable under Section 40 of the Act. However, the court held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred and must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The court found that the excise authorities acted in breach of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure by ignoring material evidence, thus their determination was no determination at all. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted.

4. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as it was filed more than three years after the right to sue first accrued. The Trial Judge rejected this contention, holding that the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 58 or Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act. The court found that the orders of the excise authorities were nullities, and thus, the suit would be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The starting point of the limitation was the final order passed by the Joint Secretary rejecting the revision application. The suit was filed within the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The court allowed First Appeal No. 11 of 1978, dismissing First Appeal No. 61 of 1978, and declared that the plaintiff Company is entitled to a refund of all the excise duty paid on paper manufactured on machines Nos. 3 and 4 and used for lamination. The Union of India was directed to pay Rs. 1,18,931.08 with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization, along with the costs of the suit and the appeal.