Civil court jurisdiction survives ultra vires excise action, and a valid family partition can reduce holdings below the exemption threshold.

Civil court jurisdiction is not excluded where excise authorities seek to apply a taxing statute to goods said to lie wholly outside its scope; statutory finality of departmental appeals and revisions operates only within the Act and does not bar a suit against ultra vires action. A partition of joint family power looms by agreement, even involving a minor coparcener, remains valid unless shown to be unfair or prejudicial, and can sever the family holdings into separate ownership. On that basis, the partition was effective and the resulting looms fell below the exempted threshold, so the excise demand could not stand and declaratory and injunctive relief was available.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred to entertain a suit challenging the excise authorities' insistence that art silk fabric manufactured on the disputed looms was liable to excise duty; (ii) whether the partition of the power looms among the members of the joint family was legally valid so as to take each share below the exempted threshold.

Issue (i): whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred to entertain a suit challenging the excise authorities' insistence that art silk fabric manufactured on the disputed looms was liable to excise duty.

Analysis: The statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Act, together with the finality attached to orders passed thereunder, was held to be final only for the purposes of the Act. The scheme of the Act and the Rules proceeded on the basic premise that the goods were excisable goods; if the goods were not excisable goods at all, the provisions requiring assessment, clearance on payment of duty, licence, penalty, and confiscation did not apply. On the authority of the principles governing exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, a civil suit remained competent where the excise officers sought to apply the Act to goods wholly outside its scope. The orders of the excise authorities insisting on duty were treated as actions beyond jurisdiction, not merely erroneous exercises of jurisdiction.

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

Issue (ii): whether the partition of the power looms among the members of the joint family was legally valid so as to take each share below the exempted threshold.

Analysis: A partition by agreement involving a minor coparcener is not void merely because the minor was represented, and it remains binding unless shown to be unfair or prejudicial to the minor's interests. That question was one of fact and was not open for the first time in second appeal. The partition also reflected a family arrangement under which the father and sons received separate shares, and the minor, on attaining majority, had not repudiated it but had proceeded on its basis. The partition was therefore effective to sever the joint family property into separate holdings.

Conclusion: The partition was legal and valid, and each allottee became owner of his separate looms.

Final Conclusion: The excise demand could not stand because the goods manufactured after the valid partition were not excisable goods within the statutory threshold, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revenue authorities seek to apply a taxing statute to goods or transactions wholly outside the statute, the statutory finality of departmental orders does not oust the civil court's jurisdiction unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes such jurisdiction; a valid family partition may also sever liability where the resulting shares fall below the charging threshold.

---