1976 (4) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing tobacco. It is stated that the Preventive and Intelligence Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner on 30th January, 1970 and also on 31st January, 1970 and weighed the stocks in the godowns. A panchanama was drawn. The Preventive and Intelligence Inspector issued a notice on 20-1-70 to the petitioner to give a statement, and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, on 17-9-71, the first respondent herein, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal circle issued a show cause notice to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 21-9-71. Ultimately the Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal by his order dated 19-10-71 demanded duty on 1306.5 Kgs. of I.A.C. whole leaf Tobacco and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju, [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 410) (S.C.) = A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2504] wherein their Lordships considered the scope of section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and observed : "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 applicab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision by pointing out that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not consider the scope of the words 'legal proceedings' occurring in section 40(2). According to him, levy of excise duty in a case where there was evasion of duty is not a legal proceedings. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kondaskar v. Deshpande [2 (1972) 11 SCJ 159] wherein, the meaning of the words 'legal proceedings' was considered. In that case, their Lordships had to consider sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and in that connection they had to incidentally consider the scope and meaning of the words 'legal proceedings', it was observed thus: "Looking at the legislative history and the scheme of the Indian Companies Act, particularly the language ....