9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1972 (8) TMI 44 - SC - Central ExciseWhether prosecution in case was barred by the rule of limitation in Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944? Held that - The complaint against respondents was that they wanted to evade payment of duty. Evasion was by using cut and torn banderols. Books of accounts were not correctly maintained. There was shortage of banderol in stock. Unbanderolled matches were found. These are all infraction of the provisions in respect of things done or ordered to be done under the Act. The positive aspect of omission in the present case is evasion of payment of duty. The provisions of the Act require proper affixing of banderols. Cut or torn banderols were used. Unbanderolled match boxes were found. These provisions about use of banderols are for collection and payment of excise duty. The respondents did not pay the lawful dues which are acts to be done or ordered to be done under the Act.The High Court was right in its conclusion that the prosecution was barred by the provisions of section 40 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of the limitation period prescribed under Section 40(2) to the prosecution of individuals. 3. Scope of the phrase "anything done or ordered to be done under the Act." 4. Whether the acts of the respondents constituted violations of the Act and the Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: The primary question was the interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which states, "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the Act or order complained of." The court examined whether this section applied only to government servants or to any individual. 2. Applicability of the limitation period prescribed under Section 40(2) to the prosecution of individuals: The appellant contended that Section 40(2) applied only to government servants. However, the court found that the language of Section 40(2) did not restrict its application to government servants alone. Unlike Section 40(1), which explicitly mentions "Central Government or any officer of the Government," Section 40(2) contains no such qualifying words. Therefore, the court concluded that Section 40(2) applies to any individual or persons, not just government servants. 3. Scope of the phrase "anything done or ordered to be done under the Act": The appellant argued that the phrase "anything done or ordered to be done under this Act" did not cover acts done in violation of the Act, particularly those done deliberately and maliciously. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that Section 40(2) does not introduce the test of good faith, unlike Section 40(1). The court referenced the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines "act" to include illegal omissions and a series of acts. Therefore, the phrase "anything done or ordered to be done" extends to illegal omissions and infractions of the statute. 4. Whether the acts of the respondents constituted violations of the Act and the Rules: The respondents were accused of violating various rules under the Central Excise Rules, such as affixing cut and torn banderols to matchboxes to evade excise duty and not maintaining proper records. The court examined the specific rules and found that the respondents' actions, such as using cut banderols and failing to maintain accurate records, constituted violations of the Act and the Rules. These actions were considered "anything done or ordered to be done under the Act," thus falling within the scope of Section 40(2). Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecutions were barred by the limitation period prescribed in Section 40(2) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts acquitting the respondents were upheld. The court emphasized that Section 40(2) applies to any individual and covers acts done in violation of the Act, including deliberate and malicious actions.
|
