S.N.Katju, J. - (1.)THESE are two appeals preferred by the defendant the Union of India, Second Appeal No. 1063 of 1959 arises out of suit No. 684 of 1956 which was instituted by the joint family firm of Messrs Prabhu Lal Ram Ratan Das through its Karta Sri Deoki Nandan. It prayed for an injunction res train ins the defendant from realising a sum of Rs. 1091/8/. from the plaintiff Second Appeal No. 1062 of 1959 arises out of suit No. 736 of 1956 which was instituted by Messrs Ghasi Ram Laxmi Narain through Sri Ghasi Ram praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realising Rs. 2845/4.00 from the plaintiff firm
(2.)THE plaintiffs in both the suits were dealers in tobacco and they sold tobacco under permits obtained from the Central Excise Department, Agra, to Messrs Ram Lal Jagannath, dealers in tobacco at Jhansi. It was alleged that duty of -/6.00 per lb was paid on the aforesaid goods in accordance with law, but subsequently on 21-3-1956 notices were issued to the plaintiffs under Rule 10A of the rules framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the plaintiffs to pay an additional duty at .008.00per lb. on the aforesaid goods.
The plaintiffs made representations to the department and failing to get the appropriate relief from the departmental authorities instituted the two suits in appeal. The plaintiffs alleged inter alia, that the proper duty of -/6.00 per lb. had been paid and no additional duty could be levied on them. It was further alleged that the notices were in fact under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the rules) framed under Section 37 of the Act and since they were sent after three months of the date when the duty was initially paid on the goods they were barred by time and the plaintiffs could not be asked to pay any additional duty on the said goods.

(3.)THE defendant contended, inter alia, that there was short levy and the proper duty payable on the said goods was at the rate of -/14.00 per lb. and since the duty of -/6.00 per lb, had been paid by the plaintiffs they were liable to pay the additional amount of /8.00 per lb. It was further contended that the notices issued by the department to the plaintiffs were under Rule 10-A and, therefore the question of limitation did not arise at all. The defendant also challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the two suits.