https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289246 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. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:40:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289246 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289246