Ejusdem Generis Limits "Other Legal Proceeding" to Court Actions, so Departmental Excise Penalty Proceedings Escape Limitation

The expression "other legal proceeding" in section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed ejusdem generis with "suit" and "prosecution", both being court proceedings. On that reading, departmental adjudication for duty and imposition of penalty did not fall within the six-month limitation period then prescribed. The statutory time-bar therefore did not apply to the impugned departmental proceedings, and the limitation objection failed; the adjudication and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "other legal proceeding" in section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 covered departmental adjudication and penalty proceedings so as to attract the six-month limitation period.

Analysis: The opening words "suit" and "prosecution" were treated as proceedings in a court of law, and the general expression that followed was held to take colour from those specific words. Applying the rule of ejusdem generis, the Court concluded that the legislature intended the general phrase to be confined to proceedings of the same class. On that construction, departmental proceedings for adjudication of duty and imposition of penalty were outside the scope of section 40(2) as it then stood. The challenge based on limitation therefore failed.

Conclusion: Section 40(2) did not bar the impugned adjudication and penalty proceedings, and the limitation objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory time-bar did not apply to departmental proceedings of the kind in question, so the demand and penalty were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "other legal proceeding" in section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 must be read ejusdem generis with "suit" and "prosecution" and does not include departmental adjudication or penalty proceedings.

---