2002 (8) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Plaintiff-respondent is a Public Limited Company with its workshop and place of business at Jamshedpur and is engaged in manufacturing of various kinds of motor vehicles. It pays Excise duty on sale of motor vehicles. Price lists are approved by the Excise Authority. In June, 1980, there were two such approved price lists (i) M.V. 2 of 1980-81 dated 1-6-1980 for sale of motor vehicles to dealers and sub-dealers and (ii) M.V. 5 of 1980-81 dated 1-6-1980 for sale of motor vehicles directly to the parties, under the category of pending release order. Approved price list No. 5 of 1980-81 was lower than approved price list No. M.V. 2 of 1980-81. Due to inadvertence or mistake in calculation or otherwise by oversight, while issuing 46 gate pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement. According to the defendants, on the plaintiff's failure to file statutory revision under Section 36 of the Act, orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate authority became final and were binding on all concerned. Plaintiff did not exhaust statutory remedies. The suit was also barred by the principle of res judicata as the fact in issue was already finally adjudicated upon and decided by the statutory appellate court. 5. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-company made excess payment of excise duty of Rs. 56,526.03 paise. It was observed that the fact that the said excess amount was paid due to mistake and oversight as claimed in the present case was not disputed by the other side....