TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (10) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. There was a survey of powerloom units manufacturing cotton fabrics under Tariff item No. 191(IA) of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Prabhadevi premises were visited on 14-3-1973 and it was found that the petitioners were not holding Central Excise licence required by Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently grey cotton fabrics in certain lots came to be attached. Since there was an information that some of the fabrics manufactured at this unit were transferred to Andheri unit of the same company, that unit was visited by the concerned officers on 28th March 1973. According to the Excise Department, the petitioners were under an obligati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r from the date of the Act or order complained of." After the amendment on 19-5-1973, the two clauses read as follows : "(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made thereunder. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule made thereunder, without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by protecting them in respect of orders passed in good faith or acts done in good faith. Unlike sub-section (1) sub-section (2) which does not have any words of qualifications as to persons is applicable to any individual or person." The Court has also further held in para 17 : "The contention that sub-section (2) is confined only against the Government officers is not warranted by the words of the statute and is repelled by reference to other comparable statutes which have indicated in clear words when the statute contemplates bar of suits, proceedings or prosecution against Government servants only. Section 40(2) of the Act cannot be said to be confined in its operation only to Government servants. The sub-section is applicable to any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plies to action against the State Government or the Central Government or its' officers. The words cannot be read to show that any benefit or any right or any bar of limitation is provided for launching a prosecution against the offenders. In comparison with the unamended section, therefore, it is clear that the bar which existed in sub-section (2) of Section 40 prior to 19-5-1973 now stands removed. On plain reading, therefore, there would be no hindrance to the launching of the prosecution, if that is done after 19-5-1973. 9.The question for consideration, however, would be whether by reason of the offence having been detected on 14-3-1973 or 28-3-1973 and the period of six months having elapsed before 17-10-1974, any right has accured t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trospective effect to the act of issuing that notice. 11.We do not think that these observations would help Mr. Saldhana in the present case, nor is he relying upon them. However, Mr. Saldhana seeks to draw support from the principle enunciated by Justice Das in the dissenting Judgment at para 13. The relevant passage relied upon reads as follows : "The proposition of law is settled beyond any doubt that although limitation is a procedural law and although it is open to the legislature to extend the period of limitation, an important right accrues to a party when the remedy against him is barred by the existing law of limitation, and a vested right cannot be affected except by express terms used by the statute or the clearest implication ....