Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was impliedly barred in a suit seeking refund of excise duty where the dispute concerned classification of goods and correctness of levy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis: The general jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is excluded only by express provision or clear implication. The Act created special rights and liabilities and provided a complete machinery of assessment, appeal and revision under Sections 35 and 36. The appellate order was final subject to revision, and the statutory authorities were required to act judicially and in accordance with natural justice. The dispute before the civil court was only whether the cloth was scoured or bleached and whether duty had been correctly assessed on that basis. Such a question fell within the statutory scheme and could be adequately adjudicated by the excise authorities. The exception recognised where the statutory tribunal acts outside the Act or in breach of fundamental procedural safeguards did not apply, as no such allegation was made.
Conclusion: The civil suit was impliedly barred and the refund claim was not maintainable in the civil court.