9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provision of Customs Act, 1962, (for short, 'the Act of 1962'), on the goods imported by the appellant-plaintiff in connection with the manufacturing activity of its factory situated at Ujjain. According to the plaintiff he learned about the excess payment on 2-7-1987 and whereupon he, on 2-7-1987, filed a refund claim before the Assistant Collector, Customs Central Excise, Ujjain. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 2-6-1988 on the ground that it was barred by limitation as provided u/S. 27 (1) of the Act of 1962. Plaintiff after serving the respondents with a notice u/S. 80 of the CPC filed suit before the Court below for recovery of the said excess amount. The suit was resisted by the defendants who, inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w for the time being in force. Any claim for refund of the duty paid under the Act of 1962 has to be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 27 and no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2). 6.Like Section 27 of the Act of 1962, Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, also provides for refund of excise duty paid under this Act. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 11B contains a provision which is pari materia to the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act of 1962. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, dealing with these provisions of the Acts of 1944 and 1962, in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (SC), by a majority decision, held : "By virtue of sub-section (3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any refund claimed either u/S. 11B of the Act of 1944 or Section 27 of the Act of 1962. In any case the decision of the apex Court in Mafatlal (supra) sets at rest any controversy on the point and there can be no manner of doubt that in respect of any claim for refund of duty paid under any of the aforesaid two Acts, jurisdiction of civil court is barred and the claim, if any, has to be preferred and adjudicated upon under the aforesaid provisions of the Acts. 8.The Court below was thus right in holding that the jurisdiction of civil court was barred in the matter. The plaintiff has been rightly non-suited and no case for interference in appeal by this court is made out. 9.The appeal thus fails and is dismissed but without any order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
