Civil challenge to an illegal fiscal levy survives where jurisdiction is not expressly barred and expert reports remain inadmissible hearsay.

A civil suit challenging an allegedly illegal fiscal levy was not barred by Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because that provision protected only good-faith acts and did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude civil jurisdiction; the general law of limitation therefore applied. Written expert reports were inadmissible because the expert was not examined and the reports amounted to hearsay. The Section 80 CPC notice was valid since it stated the substance of the claim and relief sought, and did not need to recite every evidentiary detail. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit or limited it to six months, (ii) whether the report of the expert could be relied on without examining the expert, and (iii) whether the suit was defeated by the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit or limited it to six months.

Analysis: Section 40 was held to protect only acts done in good faith and to bar suits of a tortious nature for damages or compensation. It did not, by its language, exclude a suit challenging an illegal levy of duty or penalty. The Court further held that the statutory remedy was not an adequate alternative remedy for the kind of challenge raised, especially where appeal was conditioned on deposit of the levy. In such circumstances, civil jurisdiction was not impliedly barred, and the general law of limitation applied.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 40, and the six-month limitation under that provision did not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the report of the expert could be relied on without examining the expert.

Analysis: The opinion evidence was contained only in written reports. Since the expert was not examined, there was no opportunity for cross-examination, and the reports amounted to inadmissible hearsay. An expert's opinion, unless made admissible by a statutory exception, must be proved by oral evidence in the ordinary way.

Conclusion: The written expert reports were inadmissible and could not form the basis of the adverse finding.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit was defeated by the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The notice sufficiently stated the substance of the claim and the relief sought. The omission to mention one further factual basis for liability did not amount to non-compliance, because Section 80 requires notice of the cause of action in substance, not a pedantic recital of every evidentiary detail.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 80 was valid and the plaintiff was not precluded from relying on the additional ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained, and the plaintiff succeeded on the merits, resulting in relief in challenge to the levy, confiscation and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil suit challenging an allegedly illegal fiscal levy is not barred where the statute does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude civil jurisdiction and the statutory remedy is not shown to be adequate; written expert opinions are not evidence unless proved by admissible oral testimony.

---