9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Civil Court in refund claim under Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the dismissal of a suit for refund of excess custom duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed a refund claim after learning about the excess payment, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Act. The defendants contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in the matter. The trial Court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The key provision in question, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides the procedure for claiming refund of duty paid. Sub-section (3) of Section 27 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Assistant Commissioner for such refund claims, explicitly excluding the jurisdiction of any Court or Tribunal in the matter. The provision states that no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2), emphasizing the limitation on the role of Courts in refund matters under the Act. Additionally, the judgment refers to Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which also contains provisions for refund of excise duty paid. The provision in sub-section (3) of Section 11B mirrors the exclusion of Court jurisdiction seen in Section 27(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court, in a previous case, clarified that all claims for refund under these Acts must be adjudicated only under the respective statutory provisions, barring the maintainability of suits for refund of duty. The appellant argued that since there was no dispute regarding the excess payment, the Custom Authorities were obligated to make the payment, making the suit maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, the Court rejected this argument, citing a Bombay High Court decision and emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is indeed barred in refund claims under the relevant Acts. The judgment in the present case concurred with the trial Court's decision, upholding the dismissal of the suit and emphasizing the exclusivity of statutory provisions in refund matters. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the lower Court's ruling that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in the refund claim matter. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscores the statutory provisions' exclusivity in adjudicating refund claims under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, precluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such matters.
|
