Illegal seizure of goods and statutory bars: claim for their value survives where return in specie becomes impossible.

A claim for the value of goods illegally seized and retained was treated as outside the statutory bar protecting acts done in good faith under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the alleged conduct was beyond jurisdiction and not a mere tort claim against the Government. The special six-month limitation provision was also held inapplicable, with the general law of limitation applying instead. Where the goods remained in departmental custody, deteriorated, and could not be restored in specie after the earlier confiscation order was quashed, the claimant was entitled to recover their equivalent value; bona fides were not material to that relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 40(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit for the value of seized goods; (ii) Whether Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit by limitation; (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the seized goods notwithstanding the seizure, detention, deterioration, and eventual non-return of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether Section 40(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit for the value of seized goods.

Analysis: The bar under Section 40(1) applies to suits in respect of acts done in good faith under the Act, but it does not protect acts done beyond jurisdiction or in violation of the Act. The suit was not treated as one for damages for a tortious act against the Government or its officers; it was, in substance, a claim for the value of goods illegally seized and retained until they deteriorated beyond use. A suit of that character was held not to fall within the statutory bar.

Conclusion: Section 40(1) did not bar the suit, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 barred the suit by limitation.

Analysis: The cause of action for the plaintiff arose only when the Department decided not to proceed further and required delivery of the goods. The six-month limitation in Section 40(2) was held inapplicable to a claim of this nature, which was outside the class of proceedings contemplated by that provision. The general law of limitation was treated as applicable instead.

Conclusion: Section 40(2) did not bar the suit, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the seized goods notwithstanding the seizure, detention, deterioration, and eventual non-return of the goods.

Analysis: The goods had been seized, remained in departmental custody, and had deteriorated to a condition in which they could not be returned in the same state or sold. Since the Department failed to take further effective action after the earlier confiscation order was quashed, the plaintiff was held entitled to restoration of the goods or, where restoration had become impossible, their equivalent value. The question of bona fides was treated as not material to the relief in this kind of claim.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the goods, and this issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The statutory objections failed, and the decree for the value of the seized tobacco was sustained; the second appeal accordingly did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for the value of goods illegally seized and retained, where return in the same condition has become impossible, is not barred by the statutory provisions protecting bona fide acts under the Act or by the special six-month limitation applicable to suits of the covered class.

---