1995 (5) TMI 36 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction Issue: Civil Court Dismisses Suit, Plaintiff's Appeal Allowed

The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the suit due to the provisions of Section 11B(4) and (5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The ... Civil suit - Refund Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit.2. Applicability of Section 11B(4) and (5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.3. Compliance with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act before instituting the suit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 3: Jurisdiction of the Civil CourtThe primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit, given the provisions under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The plaintiff argued that the duty was paid under a mistake of fact, and thus, the benefit of Section 72 of the Contract Act should be available. The learned Judge initially held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction, relying on various cases, including AIR 1964 SC 1006, AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 59, 1990 (2) GLJ 86, and AIR 1990 SC 772. However, these cases were deemed irrelevant to the present controversy since they did not directly address the jurisdiction issue under the specific statutory framework of the Central Excises and Salt Act.The appellants relied on decisions such as The Premier Automobile Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay (1976 (1) SCC 496), Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1969 SC 78), and Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu (1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.) = 1969 (2) SCC 658). These cases established that the ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred unless expressly or by clear implication provided by the statute. The Supreme Court in these cases emphasized that special remedies provided by statutes must be availed of, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts may be ousted if a complete machinery for redressal is provided.Issue No. 4: Applicability of Section 11B(4) and (5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944Section 11B(4) states that no claim for refund of any duty of excise shall be entertained except as provided under the Act. Section 11B(5) further bars the jurisdiction of any court in respect of such claims, asserting that the provisions of this section shall apply notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. The court found that these provisions clearly ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to the refund of excise duty, as the statute provided a complete mechanism for redressal through appeals within the Central Excise hierarchy.Issue No. 5: Compliance with the Provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act Before Instituting the SuitThe court examined whether the plaintiff had taken recourse to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act before filing the suit. The plaintiff had filed an application for a refund with the Assistant Collector, which was rejected. However, the plaintiff did not pursue further appeals within the statutory framework provided by the Act. The court held that since the plaintiff did not exhaust the remedies available under the Act, the Civil Court could not entertain the suit.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to the explicit and implied provisions of Section 11B(4) and (5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The suit was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed. The court also provided the plaintiff an opportunity to file an appeal before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) within one month, despite the lapse of the statutory period, and directed that the refund of the amount paid by the Department to the plaintiff shall be subject to the result of this appeal. No order as to costs was made.