https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42097 Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed narrowly: the words "other legal proceedings" were confined to court proceedings of the same class as a suit or prosecution, so departmental penalty action under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not barred by the six-month limit. Rule 225 was treated as making the producer or manufacturer liable for removal of excisable goods by another person as if he had removed them himself, so the firm could face penalty even where an employee made the removal. Discharge in the criminal case did not create res judicata or otherwise bar the departmental proceedings. en-us Tue, 19 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:02:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42097 Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed narrowly: the words "other legal proceedings" were confined to court proceedings of the same class as a suit or prosecution, so departmental penalty action under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not barred by the six-month limit. Rule 225 was treated as making the producer or manufacturer liable for removal of excisable goods by another person as if he had removed them himself, so the firm could face penalty even where an employee made the removal. Discharge in the criminal case did not create res judicata or otherwise bar the departmental proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42097