Civil jurisdiction in excise refund disputes survives unless barred expressly or by necessary implication; illegal levy claims remain justiciable.

Civil jurisdiction is not excluded merely because the Central Excises and Salt Act provides appellate and revisional remedies; where refund suits allege that excise duty was collected without authority of law, sections 35, 36 and 40 do not by necessary implication bar a civil court under section 9 CPC. Section 40 protects officers for acts done in good faith, but does not shield allegedly illegal or ultra vires collection from challenge. Amendments to the plaints may be allowed when they are needed to align the pleadings with later refund orders and to enable proper adjudication. The civil court's jurisdiction remains available unless exclusion is express or necessarily implied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil suits for refund of excise duty alleged to have been collected without authority of law were barred by the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, particularly sections 35, 36 and 40, and therefore not maintainable under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the amendments sought in the plaints should be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the civil suits for refund of excise duty alleged to have been collected without authority of law were barred by the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, particularly sections 35, 36 and 40, and therefore not maintainable under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 40 was held to confer immunity for acts done in good faith and to protect officers from tortious claims and criminal prosecution, but not to bar suits challenging collection of duty said to be illegal, ultra vires, or without authority of law. Sections 35 and 36, which provide an appellate and revisional mechanism, were also held not to exclude civil jurisdiction by necessary implication where the levy itself is assailed as beyond the statute or contrary to binding notification. The exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred, and a suit remains maintainable where the complaint is that tax or duty has been realised without legal authority.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was not barred, and the refund suits were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendments sought in the plaints should be allowed.

Analysis: The proposed amendments were directed to bringing the plaints in line with the later refund orders passed after rehearing. No sufficient reason was shown to refuse the amendments, and they were necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

Conclusion: The amendments were to be allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the dismissal of the suits for want of jurisdiction was set aside, and the matters were sent back for amendment of the plaints and decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil suit for refund of tax or duty alleged to have been collected wholly without authority of law is not barred unless exclusion of civil jurisdiction is express or necessarily implied, and a statutory appellate or revisional scheme does not by itself oust the civil court where the levy itself is challenged as unlawful.

---