9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, that the rate of Excise duty on bleached process cloth was higher than that for grey cloth of the corresponding Quality by 5 n.p per square metre. According to the plaintiff excessive duty amounting to Rs. 34,840.60 was paid during the period 24th April, 1962 to 2nd January, 1963 treating the accrued cloth as bleaching cloth. A claim for refund was made to the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, on 6th February, 1963. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, rejected the claims by his order dated 29th June, 1964. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred a revision petition before the Central Government on 23rd February, 1968. The Central Government on 3rd May, 1966 rejected the revision petition. It was pleaded that the plaintiff paid the entire sum of Rs 34,840.60 under mistake in ignorance of the clarification letters or the Revenue Authorities who charged excess excise duty illegally from the plaintiff in respect of clearance of secured cloth during the period 24th April, 1962 to 2nd January, 1963. A notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code dated 3rd June, 1966 was served on the defendant on 8th June, demanding refund of the aforesaid amount but to no av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no specific issue on that point was framed by the trial court. However, non-framing of the issue has not caused any prejudice to the plaintiff and since the question is purely one of law the appellant is entitled to raise it at the appellate stage. 8. The jurisdiction of the civil court to try all suits of 8 civil nature is all embracing except to the extent it is excluded by an express provision of law or by clear intendment arising from such law. This is the purport of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is well settled that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred. The Act does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters covered by the same. The question is whether it is impliedly barred. The task to determine whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred is normally a difficult one. In such a case the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question and the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided for by it would be relevant and might even become decisive. If the enquiry reveals that statute creates a special right or liability and provides for the determination of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liabilities, and provides a special machinery for resolution and adjudication of disputes in respect of them. By sub-section (2) of Section 35 the appellate order has expressly been made final subject to the power of revision conferred by Section 35. Although there is no express bar to the jurisdiction of courts but the statute gives finally to the appellate orders. On the principles set out in Dhulabhai's case (supra), the civil court jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a civil suit. In the present suit the civil court was called upon to interpret the notification dated 13-6-1962 as clarified by the subsequent letters dated 4th July, 1962 and 11th July, 1962 and to determine whether Excise duty had been correctly levied treating the cotton textiles as bleached or processed cloth. If there exists adequate remedy under the Act to adjudicate upon such a dispute, the civil court jurisdiction must be deemed to be impliedly excluded. Under the Act the Central Excise Officer determines the amount of Excise duty leviable on the article chargeable with duty. If a person feels aggrieved by his decision, he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods so imported by them were motor cycle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Custom Authorities on the contrary held that they constituted 51 sets of "Rise Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition". The Supreme Court took the view that the items so imported could not be limped together to constitute other articles, namely, motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. The Collector had no power to adopt such a process. Though the Collector had embarked upon the enquiry with jurisdiction but in adopting that process he acted in excess of jurisdiction during the course of enquiry. In this view of the matter it was held that this was, therefore, not one of those cases where between two competing entries the statutory authority applied one or the other, though in error, and where a civil court cannot interfere. 12. In the instant case the sole dispute was whether the cloth in question was to be treated as scoured or bleached. The Excise Authorities may have committed an error but it would still be an order within the Act not open to challenge in a civil court. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Firm Seth Radha Kishan (Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company instituted a revision before the Central Government which was also dismissed. The plaintiff Company then instituted a suit for recovery of the disputed amount. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the Union of India this Court review the decree and held that the correctness of the assessment of the Excise duty could not be questioned in the Civil Court and the suit was impliedly barred on the principle enunciated in Dhulabhai's case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid case. 14. The exception engraphed in the first proposition laid down in Dhulabhai's case does not arise for consideration since no allegations have been made in the plaint that the Central Excise Officer or the appellate authority or the revisional authority contravend the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 15. In view of our decision that the suits instituted by the plaintiff Company were barred it is not necessary to express any opinion on the pleas of limitation based on Section 40 of the Act. 16. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The decrees of the court below are set aside. Both the suits are dismissed with costs throughout. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
