ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this Common order. 2. These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the issuance of suit summons in three original suits (viz.) O.S. Nos. 287, 285 and 286 of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein respectively. 3. The above said civil suits were filed in respect of original assessment orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. It is the admitted position that these assessment orders are appealable orders under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents herein did not file an appeal against the said orders; instead, civil suits were filed for a declaration that the respondents herein are entitled for exemption from Excise Duty (in O.S. No. 287 of 2013 only) and also for a declaration that the Assessment Orders are Null and Void and, consequently, for a permanent injunction restraining any action pursuant thereto. 4. At the hearing today, the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that the civil suits are barred by law and therefore, the revision petitions challenging the issuance of suit summons are liable to be allowed. In order to substantiate his contention, the Learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) Hindustan Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, 2005 (192) ELT 48 (Cal.) wherein, at paragraph no. 15, it was held that detailed provisions for appeal have been created under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the filing of a civil suit is impliedly barred. (ii) Union of India Rep. by the Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Educational Research Centre, C.R.P. (PD) (MD) Nos. 132 of 2011 and 398 of 2012, wherein at paragraph no. 9, this Court held that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to Service Tax matters. (iii) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 , 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) wherein at paragraph no. 23, the Court held as stated below:- “....Because the Act creates new rights and liabilities and also provides the machinery for assessment and adjudication of those rights and liabilities, a bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court arises by necessary implication - an aspect dealt with at some length later....” 5. 23, the Court held as stated below:- “....Because the Act creates new rights and liabilities and also provides the machinery for assessment and adjudication of those rights and liabilities, a bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court arises by necessary implication - an aspect dealt with at some length later....” 5. In response, the Learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the revision petitioners should have filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint as barred by law, instead of filing the present civil revision petitions. In the alternative, the Learned Counsel also submitted that it is open to the Civil Court to frame a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction before deciding the suit on merits. Therefore, he submitted that the present Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable. In addition, the Learned Counsel for the respondents referred to Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; in specific, he drew the attention of this Court to Section 40(2) and the same is extracted hereunder: “40. Protection of action taken under the Act. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule made thereunder, without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceedings and of the cause thereof or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause.” 6. In order to further substantiate his submissions, the Learned Counsel referred to the judgment rendered in the case of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Private Limited, (2006) 3 LW 229 : (2006) 203 ELT 193 (Mad.). In this judgment, he relied upon paragraphs 10, 11 and 15, wherein this Court adverted to the fact that if a specific issue is framed with regard to jurisdiction, it is necessary to adjudicate the same first. On that basis, in the said judgment, this Court disposed of the matter by directing the respective Subordinate Court to frame a specific issue relating to jurisdiction and try the same after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties. On that basis, in the said judgment, this Court disposed of the matter by directing the respective Subordinate Court to frame a specific issue relating to jurisdiction and try the same after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties. By relying upon the said judgment, the Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the Civil Revision Petitions are premature and that the appropriate remedy is before the Civil Court to decide the issue on jurisdiction. 7. The records and oral submissions were carefully considered. 8. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred. On perusal of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that there is no express bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the jurisdiction is impliedly barred. This question is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 (CB) laid down the principles to decide whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section 9 of C.P.C. Paragraph No. 35 of the said judgment is relevant and the same reads as under:- “(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the Civil Court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to Find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.” 9. Subsequently, in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (cited supra), the Nine Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the majority judgment of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy held in paragraph No. 77 as under:- “....It must also be remembered that Central Excises and Salt Act is a special enactment creating new and special obligations and rights, which at the same time prescribes the procedure for levy, assessment, collection, refund and all other incidental and ancillary provisions. As pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which became the Act, the Act along with the Rules was intended to “form a complete Central excise code.” The idea was “to consolidate in a single enactment all the laws relating to Central duties of excise.” The Act is a self-contained enactment. It contains provisions for collecting the taxes which are due according to law but have not been collected and also for refunding the taxes which have been collected contrary to law, viz. Sections 11-A and 11-B and its allied provisions. Both provisions contain a uniform rule of limitation, viz. six months, with an exception in each case. Sections 11-A and 11-B are complementary to each other. To such a situation, Proposition No. 3 enunciated in Kamala Mills becomes applicable, viz. where a statute creates a special right or a liability and also provides the procedure for the determination of the right or liability by the Tribunals constituted in that behalf and provides further that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so constituted, the resort to Civil Court is not available - except to the limited extent pointed out therein....” 10. When this case is analyzed in light of the above binding and authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as already stated, it is clear that the Assessment Orders in each of the cases is an appealable order. When a specific statutory remedy is provided, especially in a tax statute, which is to be exercised within a prescribed time-limit, the said remedy necessarily excludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a Civil Court. Otherwise, it would be possible for parties to circumvent and bypass the statutory mechanism for resolution of disputes, including the time-limit for availing such remedies. 11. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that a suit is maintainable in view of Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act is not tenable. In case a remedy had not been provided in the Central Excise Act in respect of the orders impugned in the suits, it may have been possible to contend that the filing of the suits is not impliedly barred. However, in this case, it is the admitted position that the assessment orders are appealable orders. In case a remedy had not been provided in the Central Excise Act in respect of the orders impugned in the suits, it may have been possible to contend that the filing of the suits is not impliedly barred. However, in this case, it is the admitted position that the assessment orders are appealable orders. The other contentions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the trial Court could frame a preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction is true but it is not necessary to take recourse to such an elaborate exercise when a special statute has evidently created an extensive machinery for resolution of disputes arising under that statute. 12. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to ensure proper administration of justice without permitting parties to circumvent the dispute resolution mechanism established under the tax statute. In the result, all the three Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.