The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred when a statute provides a detailed machinery for redressal of grievances, such as the Central Excise Act, 1944.

A. K. GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length at the stage of admission of this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the 'code' ). By the order dated 20. 06. 03, which is under appeal, the learned Judge of 3rd Bench of the city Civil Court at Calcutta held that the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit, being Title Suit No. 1653 of 2002, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under section 9 of the Code. As such, the learned Judge refused to pass any order on the injunction petition filed by the appellant and rejected the same with costs.

( 2 ) THE appeal is against that judgment.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal argued that the learned Trial Judge erred in law while construing the provisions of section 9 of the Code. The learned counsel submitted that unless there is any specific statutory bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the court should have entertained the civil suit. It was also urged that, in this case, there is no such statutory bar. It was also argued that the implied bar of jurisdiction cannot be assumed rightly unless such an implication is apparent or obvious. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel cited several decisions.

( 4 ) BEFORE considering the decisions, the Court proposes to look into the bare facts of the case.

( 5 ) FROM the facts of this case, it appears that initially a Show Cause notice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-1. It was stated in the said Show cause Notice that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of HDPE laminated jute fabrics and in the said notice, they were asked to show cause why central excise duties amounting to rs. 92,20,349. 28 (being basic excise duty of Rs. 85,34,832. 59, plus a special excise duty of Rs. 6,85,516. 69) will not be leviable on them under the provisions of Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with section 11ad of the Act. Against the said Show cause Notice, the petitioner gave a reply on 2nd July, 1994.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the Commissioner passed an order on 27. 12. 1995 confirming the demand of Rs. 92,20,349. 28. Against the said order of the commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal on 16th May, 1996. Thereupon, the Appellate Authority, by an order dated 5th of June, 1996, was pleased to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the matter of de novo adjudication by the Commissioner.

( 7 ) PURSUANT to the said order of remand, the Commissioner again passed an order on 28th February, 2002 ordering the payment of central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 86,54,835. 69 under Rule 9 (2) of the Central excise Rules, 1944 read with the provision to section 11a of the Central excise Act, 1944 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order by the appellant. A penalty to the tune of Rs. 9/- lakhs was also imposed under Rule 173q (1) of the said Rules. The Commissioner held that there is no case for passing any order of confiscation. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the appellant and the said appeal was decided by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern bench, Kolkata on August 22, 2002. By the order under appeal, the appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as also the appeal, which was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner.

( 8 ) THIS order is sought to be challenged by the appellant by filing a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta and in connection with the said suit, the appellant also filed an injunction petition.

( 9 ) WHILE dealing with this injunction petition, the learned Judge of city Civil Court at Calcutta passed the impugned order refusing to grant any injunction and, inter alia, held that the Civil Court does not, however, have any jurisdiction in the matter.

( 10 ) IN assailing the said finding, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Privy Council in the case o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document