https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423461 Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed as not barring a civil suit for damages where prior notice had been given, and the show cause notice was not treated as illegal or time-barred merely because it was issued after six months in the departmental context. The claim nevertheless failed because the plaintiff did not prove actual loss, valuation of the destroyed stock, or a causal link establishing departmental liability for the fire damage. The court held that assumptions and criminal proceedings could not substitute for proof of damages in the civil suit, so the trial decree was set aside and the suit for damages and injunction failed. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2022 08:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423461 Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed as not barring a civil suit for damages where prior notice had been given, and the show cause notice was not treated as illegal or time-barred merely because it was issued after six months in the departmental context. The claim nevertheless failed because the plaintiff did not prove actual loss, valuation of the destroyed stock, or a causal link establishing departmental liability for the fire damage. The court held that assumptions and criminal proceedings could not substitute for proof of damages in the civil suit, so the trial decree was set aside and the suit for damages and injunction failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423461