https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291769 Section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act did not bar the suit because the officers had already received redemption fine, penalty and duty, and the later sale of confiscated tobacco was treated as outside acts done under the Act. A claim framed as damages for conversion against the Union of India was not maintainable. However, because the sale proceeds were deposited in the Government Treasury and retained by the State, the owner could recover that amount as money received for his use on equitable principles, within Article 62 of the Limitation Act. The decree was therefore reduced to the sale proceeds actually retained. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291769 Section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act did not bar the suit because the officers had already received redemption fine, penalty and duty, and the later sale of confiscated tobacco was treated as outside acts done under the Act. A claim framed as damages for conversion against the Union of India was not maintainable. However, because the sale proceeds were deposited in the Government Treasury and retained by the State, the owner could recover that amount as money received for his use on equitable principles, within Article 62 of the Limitation Act. The decree was therefore reduced to the sale proceeds actually retained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291769