2016 (11) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the petitioner that the petitioner was a customs officer. He cleared certain goods, which were bearing sanction from the Textile Ministry and the goods were dispatched to Dubai and later on it was revealed that the value of the goods when exported from India was inflated. 3. It is also contended that only legal question is involved in this case, there is a bar under Section 155(2) of the Act and the court below has not considered the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr., 1978 (2) ELT (J 410) (SC) as well as of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2016 (338) ELT 255 (Cal.) and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Inve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anced before me as well as the rulings cited by the rival parties. 7. In the judgments cited before me, the Apex Court and the High Courts have dealt with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first refer to the relevant provisions for arriving at a just decision. 8. Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 reads as under:- "40. Bar of suits and limitation of suits and other legal proceedings.- (1) No suit shall lie against the Central Government or against any officer of the Government in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under this Act. (2) No suit,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the rules or regulations. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. (supra) was dealing with Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the limitation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 would be applicable as no suit, p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s or regulations. There is a bar on filing a suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding, if the act is done in good faith. 15. Counsel for the petitioner is not claiming the protection as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, as it is contended by the learned counsel that the protection sought for under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act was rejected upto the High Court. Counsel for the petitioner is seeking protection under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act on the ground that the words "no proceeding" mentioned in sub-section (2) includes criminal prosecution, and therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that a month's previous notice in writing is mandatory. 16. The words....