1983 (11) TMI 322 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Jurisdiction of civil courts over adjudicatory orders of statutory authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The trial court declared the adjudicatory order Ex. A-4 as illegal and arbitrary, holding that it violated the principles of natural justice. Specifically, it found that the non-examination of Syed Omer, who provided a statement marked as Ex. B-11, constituted a failure to observe these principles. The appellate court, however, reversed this decision, noting that the appellant did not request the examination of Syed Omer during the enquiry. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the order did not violate the principles of natural justice.

In the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the statement Ex. B-11 was not valid evidence unless Syed Omer was examined as a witness. The failure to examine him was claimed to be a violation of natural justice. The respondent's counsel countered that the appellant had been given an opportunity to examine Syed Omer but did not avail of it. Therefore, the non-examination could not be considered a violation of natural justice.

The judgment emphasized that the principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity to refute allegations and present evidence. The evidence collected, even if not strictly adhering to the Evidence Act, must be made available to the party concerned, who must then be given a chance to rebut it. In this case, the appellant had the opportunity to request the examination of Syed Omer but chose not to, thus the adjudicatory order was not deemed violative of natural justice.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
The appellate court held that civil courts do not serve as appellate forums for adjudicatory orders by statutory authorities and cannot delve into the merits of such cases. This judgment was grounded in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits the jurisdiction of civil courts to suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute.

The judgment elaborated on the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, stating that such exclusion must be either explicit in the statute or clearly implied from its provisions and the rules made thereunder. The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kamala Mills v. Bombay State, which held that erroneous or incorrect assessments under a statute cannot be questioned in civil courts.

The court examined the relevant statutory framework, including the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provide specific procedures and forums for adjudication and appeals. It was determined that the remedies provided under these statutes are adequate and exclusive, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts.

The judgment concluded that civil courts have limited jurisdiction to review whether the adjudicating authority was competent, whether essential requisites were met, whether the procedure was followed, and whether reasonable opportunity was afforded. In this case, the adjudicating authority had exclusive jurisdiction, and the appellant was provided with all necessary materials and opportunities to present his case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the adjudicatory order. The trial court's decision to declare the order arbitrary was beyond its power, as the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded by necessary implication in such matters. The appellant's failure to request the examination of Syed Omer during the enquiry process meant that the adjudicatory order did not violate the principles of natural justice.