TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited the premises of the petitioner on 30th January, 1970 and also on 31st January, 1970 and weighed the stocks in the godowns. A panchanama was drawn. The Preventive and Intelligence Inspector issued a notice on 20-1-70 to the petitioner to give a statement, and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, on 17-9-71, the first respondent herein, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal circle issued a show cause notice to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 21-9-71. Ultimately the Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal by his order dated 19-10-71 demanded duty on 1306.5 Kgs. of I.A.C. whole leaf Tobacco and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100. It is this order that is being impugned in this writ petition. It may also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju, [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 410) (S.C.) = A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2504] wherein their Lordships considered the scope of section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and observed : "the contention that sub-section (2) is confined only against the Government officers is not warranted by the words of the statute and is repelled by reference to other comparable statutes which have indicated in clear words when the statute contemplates bar of suits proceedings or prosecution against Government servants only. Section 40(2) of the Act cannot be said to be confined in its operation only to Government servants. The sub-section is applicable to any person against whom suits or proceedings or prosecution shall lie for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the scope of the words 'legal proceedings' occurring in section 40(2). According to him, levy of excise duty in a case where there was evasion of duty is not a legal proceedings. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kondaskar v. Deshpande [2 (1972) 11 SCJ 159] wherein, the meaning of the words 'legal proceedings' was considered. In that case, their Lordships had to consider sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and in that connection they had to incidentally consider the scope and meaning of the words 'legal proceedings', it was observed thus: "Looking at the legislative history and the scheme of the Indian Companies Act, particularly the language of sec. 446 read as, while it appears to us that the expression "other legal proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cause thereof or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such causes". A perusal of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Raju, [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 410) (S.C.) = AIR 1972 S.C. 2504] makes it clear that the learned judges pointed out that section 40(2) as it stood then cannot be interpreted so as to confine it only against the Government officers. This amended section has obviously been introduced to get over the difficulty created by the Judgment of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the alleged evasion of duty and the issuance of the show cause notice were prior to the introduction of the amendment to section 40(2). We may also mention that a similar view has been taken by one of us i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
