Civil suit, limitation, and excise duty bar failed where levy rested on inapplicable statutory provisions and Codopyrin was not proprietary medicine.

A statutory bar on suits under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act applies only to acts or orders made in good faith and within the Act's scope; levies based on an inapplicable provision or on Drugs Rules considerations fell outside that protection, so civil jurisdiction was not excluded. The special limitation period likewise applied only to acts done under the Act, and did not govern a claim for refund of duty illegally collected outside statutory power. Codopyrin, manufactured to a standard formula in the British Pharmacopoeia, was not a patent or proprietary medicine liable to excise duty on the facts considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was barred by Section 20(1) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955; (ii) whether Rule 127 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court; (iii) whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 20(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955; and (iv) whether the preparation Codopyrin, as manufactured during the relevant period, was a patent or proprietary medicine liable to excise duty.

Issue (i): whether the suit was barred by Section 20(1) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 20(1) bars suits only in respect of orders passed in good faith or acts done or ordered to be done in good faith under the Act. An order founded on a statutory provision not in force during the relevant period, or based on an inapplicable rule under a different enactment, is not an order under the Act and cannot be treated as an act done in good faith within the meaning of the section. The impugned levy was sustained by reference to a later explanation not applicable to the relevant period and by reliance on alleged breaches of the Drugs Rules, which could not enlarge the taxing power under the Act.

Conclusion: Section 20(1) did not bar the suit, and the objection failed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether Rule 127 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Analysis: The rule-making power under the Act could not be used to enlarge the statutory bar created by Section 20. A construction that would oust civil jurisdiction generally would make the rule ultra vires, so the rule had to be read consistently with the Act. In any event, even where finality clauses exist, civil suits remain maintainable where the authority acts outside the statute or in non-compliance with the statutory scheme. The impugned orders were made by applying a provision not operative for the relevant period and by importing considerations from the Drugs Rules, so the case fell outside any permissible exclusion of civil jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Rule 127 did not exclude the civil court's jurisdiction, and the objection failed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 20(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 20(2) applies to suits for things done or ordered to be done under the Act. The Court held that where the impugned demand and recovery were not acts done under the Act in law, but were outside the statutory power, the special period of limitation did not apply. The claim was therefore governed by the ordinary limitation period applicable to a civil suit for recovery of money illegally collected.

Conclusion: Section 20(2) did not bar the suit, and the objection failed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether Codopyrin, as manufactured during the relevant period, was a patent or proprietary medicine liable to excise duty.

Analysis: The relevant classification had to be determined with reference to the law in force during the period in question. Codopyrin was manufactured according to a standard formula found in the British Pharmacopoeia, 1958 Edition, and the mere labeling controversy or alleged breach of the Drugs Rules did not convert it into a patent or proprietary medicine for the purpose of excise duty under the Act.

Conclusion: Codopyrin was not a patent or proprietary medicine liable to excise duty, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds. The civil suit for refund of duty illegally collected was maintainable, was not time-barred under the special statutory limitation, and the product in question was not exigible to duty as treated by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on suits and a special limitation period apply only to acts or orders that are in law made under the statute and within the scope of the authority's jurisdiction; where the authority acts outside the statute or on an inapplicable legal basis, civil jurisdiction and ordinary limitation remain available.

---