( 1 ) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment of the II Additional Civil Judge, muzaffar-nagar dated 24th February, 1967, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, Sir shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Mansoorpur. The present appeal has been filed by the union of India.

( 2 ) SIR Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian companies Act carrying on the business of production and sale of Crystal Sugar in Mansoorpur, district Muzaffarnagar. The Company produces sugar by power using vacuum pan process. The excise duty leviable on the sugar prior to 4th of May, 1961 was Rupees 22. 15 n. p. per quintal. On 4th May 1961 the Central Government by a notification issued under Rule 8 Sub-clause (1)of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 announced an exemption from the basic excise duty as is in excess of Rupees 11. 08 n. p. per quintal in such quantity of sugar produced in a factory during the year commencing 1st November, 1960 as is in excess of the yearly average quantity of sugar produced in that factory during the preceding two years commencing on the 1st November, 1958 and ending with 31st October, 1960.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 9th of May, 1961 a Trade Notice No. 50/1961 was issued by the Collector, central Excise, Allahabad clarifying the notice which was issued by the State Government on 4th May, 1961 and further laid down the manner in which the said exemption would be cal-culated.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff-respondents company filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 30,290/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum alleging that they were entitled to refund of the said amount in view of the notification dated 4th May, 1961.

( 5 ) THE Union of India in defence took up the plea that by virtue of notification dated 4th May, 1961 read along with the Trade Notice No. 50/1961 the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any rebate of excise duty and as such was not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court, and the only remedy open to the plaintiff-respondent was to file an appeal or a revision under the provisions of the Central excises and Salt Act, 1944.

( 6 ) THE trial court held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the rebate in pursuance of the notification dated 4th May, 1961 and that the Trade Notice No. 50/1961 was without jurisdiction and as such cannot have any effect on the notification dated 4th May, 1961. The trial court further held that the suit was maintainable in the civil court. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed by the trial court for a sum of Rupees 28,827. 93 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on 24-2-1967.

( 7 ) THIS appeal came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of Honble M. N. Shukla, J. and honble K. P. Singh, J. The Bench was of the opinion that the points arising in the case are of general importance and as such it was desirable that the case be heard by a larger Bench. On 22-1-78 the Bench, therefore, directed that the papers be laid before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the entire appeal.

( 8 ) THE appeal, therefore, came up for hearing before this Bench.

( 9 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has urged that the present suit was not maintainable in the civil court in view of Sections 35, 36 and 40 of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act. He has relied on two division Bench authorities of this Court, Shabbir Hasan Khan v. Union of India AIR 1974 All 99 and the decision in First Appeal No. 287 of 1964, Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General mills Company Ltd. dated 1-12-1971.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, has however, urged that the provisions of the Act does not provide for an effective remedy to the plaintiff-respondent and further th