TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1958 (3) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alcutta, through the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ranchi, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. On the 26th June, 1948, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, confiscated the seized tobacco & ordered that the same be released on payment of the duty imposed and a redemption fine of Rs. 200/- in lieu of confiscation. The Collector of Central Excise imposed a further penalty of Rs. 100/- upon the plaintiff. This order was communicated to the plaintiff on 6-7-1948. The plaintiff alleged that he deposited the amount by two challans on 20-4-1949. Thereafter the plaintiff sent letters to the Department of Central Excise for, delivery of the seized tobacco to him, but the tobacco was not returned. The plaintiff has, accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of action or from the date of the act or order complained of." In our opinion the argument addressed by the learned Government Pleader is not correct and section 40 Of Act I of 1944 does apply to this claim of the plaintiff. Section 33 of the Act deals with the power of adjudication and states as follows: "33. Power of adjudication. -- Whereby the rules made under this Act anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged: (a) without limit, by a Collector of Central Excise. (b) up to confiscation of goods not exceeding five hundred rupees in value and imposition of penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees by an Assistant Collector of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the redemption fine, penalty and duty was lawfully made on 20-8-1949. It does not appear from the record of this case on what date the confiscated tobacco was sold by the Central Excise Department, but It appears from exhibit C that the amount of sale proceeds was deposited in the Treasury on the 21-6-1950. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the sale took place long after 20-4-1949, when the plaintiff made the deposit. If this assumption is correct, it follows that the officers of the Department of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to sell the confiscated tobacco in the manner they have done. In other words, the action of the officers of the Central Excise Department in selling the confiscated tobacco was clearly ultra vires a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds seized. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the liability of the Secretary of State in Council was to be determined with reference to what would have been the liability of the East Indian Company were it still in existence. It was held by Jenkins, C. J. and Aston, J. that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as the Chief Constable seized the goods not in obedience to an order of the executive Government but in performance of a statutory power vested in him by the Legislature and that the seizure of the goods was not in any sense productive of benefit to the revenues of the Bombay Government nor was it a transaction out of which profit could be derived. It was further observed in this case that in order that a suit shoul....