9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mshedpur and is engaged in manufacturing of various kinds of motor vehicles. It pays Excise duty on sale of motor vehicles. Price lists are approved by the Excise Authority. In June, 1980, there were two such approved price lists (i) M.V. 2 of 1980-81 dated 1-6-1980 for sale of motor vehicles to dealers and sub-dealers and (ii) M.V. 5 of 1980-81 dated 1-6-1980 for sale of motor vehicles directly to the parties, under the category of pending release order. Approved price list No. 5 of 1980-81 was lower than approved price list No. M.V. 2 of 1980-81. Due to inadvertence or mistake in calculation or otherwise by oversight, while issuing 46 gate passes and making payment of excise duty in respect of those motor vehicles, which were covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate authority became final and were binding on all concerned. Plaintiff did not exhaust statutory remedies. The suit was also barred by the principle of res judicata as the fact in issue was already finally adjudicated upon and decided by the statutory appellate court. 5. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-company made excess payment of excise duty of Rs. 56,526.03 paise. It was observed that the fact that the said excess amount was paid due to mistake and oversight as claimed in the present case was not disputed by the other side. It was further observed that on false and baseless ground the authority turned down the claim branding the plainti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur, was, in fact and in substance, an application for equitable relief at the hands of the authority concerned to whom the aforesaid excess amount of excise duty was paid under a mistake. The said application was not rejected on merit. 9. In the aforesaid circumstance, it follows that the present suit for recovery of the said amount cannot be said to be in respect of anything done or ordered to be done, under the Act. Hence, in my opinion, Section 40(2) of the Act did not operate as a bar to the present suit and the suit was maintainable and was also not a premature one. In view of the admitted position that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 56,526.03 paise was paid in excess as excise duty by mistake, the trial court rightly held the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
