TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (11) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vered by a lorry receipt, Ex. A-15, the name of the consignee being shown as "M/s. G.C." As the Central Excise authorities found the lorry receipt to be suspicious, the parcel was got opened before mediators. The said parcel contained, in addition to account books, a tin box covered with straw. On opening the tin box, 195 wrist watches (wrist watches) of foreign origin were found. A mediators report, Ex. B-4, was drawn up and an inventory, Ex. B-5, was taken and the watches were seized by D.W. 1. On information that the consignee's name mentioned as "M/s. G.C." refers to one Ghatmal Champalal, the appellant-plaintiff, D.W. 1 and his staff conducted searches at the shop and residence of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff was found missing. After three days, the proprietor of the plaintiff-firm, Ghatmal (P.W. 2) appeared before the Central Excise authorities on summons being issued to him. On that date i.e. 24-10-1964, a statement (Ex. B-1) given by P.W. 2 was recorded by D.W. 2, a resident of Rajahmundry. In Ex. B-1, P.W. 2 stated that he was carrying on business in fancy goods at Rajahmundry in the name of "Ghatmal Champalal", Champalal being his younger brother. His mother is also a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officials of the Central Excise Department examined Sukhraj (who is said to be the Accountant of the plaintiff-firm) at Ahore in Jalore district in the State of Rajasthan. He stated that he was working in the shop of the plaintiff-firm at Rajahmundry on a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. One month back, he took the entire amount, which was due to him, after deducting Rs. 536/- against all expenses and that he would go back whenever he found leisure. He further stated as follows :- "Apart from this, I have not got any money from them on credit basis either to purchase any goods or to give at Ahore at their house. I do not know the partners in the shop of Ghatmal." 6. He further stated that the plaintiff-firm was a fancy goods shop dealing in snow, powder, fountain pens, blades, razors, ink etc., and categorically stated that "Articles like watches were not sold so far at the shop". He admitted that he was writing the ledger in Marwadi language. He stated : "When necessary goods were received from Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. Ghatmal used to personally attend to the purchases book. Once I have also purchased goods worth Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- from Madras which do not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....returned, he came to know that P.W. 4 had purchased the watches. He stated that P.W. 4 gave the statement out of fear and threat of action and, therefore, the said statement was not admissible and could not be acted upon. He stated that the purchases were accounted for in the books of account maintained by the plaintiff-firm in the usual course of business, that the purchase of 95 watches was supported by bills issued by Sha Premji Devichand of Bangalore and that the foreign watches were freely available in the open market and that some other watches were purchased at Bombay, though not evidenced by the bills, and, therefore, there were no grounds made out for believing that the said watches were of foreign origin and were unlawfully imported as such they could not be confiscated. 9. The Collector of Central Excise, after recording the evidence of the parties and holding that the statements given by both P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were voluntary, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not establish his ownership of the watches seized and that the watches shown in the bills did not agree with the watches found in the seized consignment either in the total number of pieces of each m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the notice was issued to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove firstly that he was the owner of the goods and secondly that the goods could not be seized. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate the case that he was the owner and, therefore, the petitioner could not say that, merely because he was given an opportunity, he must be treated as the owner and that further questions should be gone into in spite of the finding arrived at by the Collector of Central Excise that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was the owner of the goods. In that view, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs. But the learned Judge observed as follows :- "This order will not preclude the petitioner from establishing in any appropriate proceedings in a Court of law, if he is so advised, that he is the owner of the seized goods." 13. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice, Ex. A-27, dated 6-5-1971 through their lawyer, under Section 80, C.P.C. to the Union of India as well as the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collectors of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Guntur, and filed the present suit on 15-6-1972 for the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiff that he got the watches purchased at Bangalore and Bombay and that he was the owner of the watches could not be accepted and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the watches or their value and, consequently, he was not entitled to the declaration prayed for. On issues 3 and 4, it appears, no arguments were advanced. Hence the suit was held to be maintainable and the valuation of the suit was found to be proper. On Issue No. 5 relating to limitation, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the proceedings before the Central Excise authorities wee pending and the revision petition filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Government on 9-9-1968 and the writ petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 23-3-1971 and, therefore, the aforesaid period should be deducted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and hence the suit was within time. However, in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with costs. 16. In this appeal, Sri M.S.K. Sastry, the learned Counsel for the appellant plaintiff, sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He goes to the extent of saying that the plaintiff-firm was not dealing in wrist watches. This statement was recorded by the Central Excise authorities and no reasons have been given for holding that the said statement was not voluntary or that it was taken by any threat or coercion. 19. One other circumstance to be noticed is that the seizure of the watches was made as early as on 21-10-1964 and P.W. 2's statement was recorded on 24-10-1964 and P.W. 4 returned from Ahore to Rajahmundry on 4-11-1964. Therefore, the plaintiff must have been aware by 4-11-1964 that P.W. 4 had purchased the watches at Bangalore and Bombay. But the plaintiff did not immediately send any representation to the Central Excise authorities setting up a claim for the said watches. It is only on 14-10-1965 under Ex. A-17 that the plaintiff for the first time set up a claim to the watches seized on 21-10-1964. But this belated claim belies the claim of the plaintiff. Further, there is no reason why P.W. 4 should have consigned these watches from Bombay when he is alleged to have purchased some of the watches at Bangalore. Moreover, the suspicious way in which the watches were sent by a lorry concealed in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re seized on 21-10-1964 and the proceedings before the Central Excise authorities terminated by dismissal of the revision petition by the Government of India on 9-9-1968. The plaintiff preferred a writ petition (W.P. No. 972 of 1969) in this Court on 11-1-1969 and the same was dismissed on 23-3-1971. It is thereafter that the plaintiff issued a suit notice under Section 80, C.P.C. on 6-5-1971 and filed the suit on 15-6-1972. The cause of action for the suit is the seizure of the watches alleged to belong to the plaintiff and the suit is now based on title. This is not a suit where the plaintiff is challenging the orders of the Central Excise authorities. In fact, it is highly doubtful whether such a suit would lie. However, the suit, as framed, is for establishing the plaintiff's title to the watches seized and for recovery of possession of the same. In the writ petition the learned Judge was not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the competent Central Excise authorities in their exercise of their jurisdiction under the statute, that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the watches seized. That means, even in writ petition, the finding arrive....