JUDGMENT Sharma, J.- The defendants are appellants. Money Suit No. 111 of 1983 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for realisation of a sum of Rs. 56,526.03 paise together with interest, pendentelite and further, on account of excess excise duty paid on 46 motor vehicle's gate passes. 2. Plaintiff-respondent is a Public limited Company with its workshop and place of business at Jamshedpur and is engaged in manufacturinu 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.B. 2 of 1980-81 dated 1.6.1980 for sale of motor vehicles to dealers and subdealers and (ii) M. V: 5 of 1980-81 dated 1.6.1980 for sale for motor vehicle 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 passes and making payment of excise duty in respect of those motor vehicles, which were covered by the approved price list no. 5 of 1980-81, were assessed on the basis of price list no. M.V. 2 of 1980-81, which was comparatively higher and said higher price was taken for payment of excise duty, whereas lower price should have been taken for assessment of excise duty. As soon as said mistake was detected, while submitting its monthly return in Form RT 12 for the month of June, 1980, on 9.7.1980, a request was made for refund of a sum of Rs. 56,526.03 paise paid in excess towards excise duty. Details of aforesaid sum was attached with the said return. 3. The plaintiff's further case was that the defendants accepted that aforesaid excess amount of excise duty on 45 gate passes was paid in excess and asked the plaintiff to submit refund claim directly to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. Accordingly, refund claim was filed, but was wrongly rejected on 9.7.1981. Statutory appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was also rejected as time barred. Accordingly, refund claim was filed, but was wrongly rejected on 9.7.1981. Statutory appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was also rejected as time barred. Instead of filing statutory revision under the Act, the present suit was filed on ground that orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate authority were based on mis-conception of facts and law and were passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. 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 other side. It was further observed that on false and baseless ground the authority turned down the claim branding the plaintiff to be in the habit of making excess/ short payment of excise duty, but not a single instance could be proved legally. As a matter of fact the present suit was in the nature of a simple suit for recovery of money on account of payment of excess excise duty by mistake and oversight. Such claim was not covered by the Act. Jurisdiction of civil court as such was not barred and suit was also not pre-mature. Plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 56526.03, paise with future interest @ 1 % per annum. 6. After hearing the parties at length and on perusal of the lower court records, I find that the defendants did not dispute the fact that the excise duty was paid in excess by mistake, as claimed by the plaintiff. 56526.03, paise with future interest @ 1 % per annum. 6. After hearing the parties at length and on perusal of the lower court records, I find that the defendants did not dispute the fact that the excise duty was paid in excess by mistake, as claimed by the plaintiff. It is also not disputed that a petition was filed by the plaintiff before the authority concerned for refund of the aforesaid amount, which was admittedly paid in excess by mistake. 7. It is well settled that where once it is established that payment of excess taxi duty was made by a party by mistake, such party is entitled to recover the same and the party receiving the said excess amount is bound to repay or return it. 8. In course of hearing the appeal neither any statute not any Rule? made under the said Act was brought to my notice which provided any machinery whatsoever for recovery of excise duty paid in excess by mistake. So, in my opinion, the application for refund filed by the plaintiff before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, was, in fact and in substance, an application for equitable relief at the hands of the authority concerned to whom the aforesaid excess amount of excise duty was paid under a mistake. The said application was not rejected on merit. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it follows that the present suit for recovery of the said amount cannot be said to be in respect of anything done or ordered to be done, under the Act. Hence, in my opinion, Section 40(2) of the Act did not operate as a bar to the present suit and the suit was maintainable and was also not a premature one. In view of the admitted position that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 56,526.03 paise was paid in excess as excise duty by mistake, the trial court rightly held the plaintiff entitled to a decree for the said sum alongwith the future interest. 10. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This Appeal is dismissed, having no merit, but without costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.