1982 (11) TMI 57 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the watches.
2. Voluntariness of the statements (Exs. B-1 and B-3).
3. Maintainability of the suit.
4. Proper valuation of the suit.
5. Limitation period for filing the suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Watches:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the watches seized by the Central Excise authorities on 21-10-1964. The plaintiff initially denied ownership in the statement (Ex. B-1) recorded on 24-10-1964, stating that neither he nor his firm had ordered the watches. Similarly, P.W. 4, the firm's accountant, in his statement (Ex. B-3), denied any involvement in purchasing or ordering the watches. The plaintiff later claimed ownership by presenting bills (Exs. A-10, A-11, and A-12) and account books. However, the court found discrepancies between the watches listed in the bills and those seized. The plaintiff's delayed claim and the suspicious manner of the watches' transport further weakened his case. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, affirming the lower court's finding.

2. Voluntariness of the Statements (Exs. B-1 and B-3):
The plaintiff contended that the statements (Exs. B-1 and B-3) were not voluntary and were made under duress. However, both D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 testified that the statements were given voluntarily. Ex. B-1 included a recital that it was read over to P.W. 2 and admitted as correct. D.W. 2, an independent witness, supported this. No evidence suggested coercion. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's claim of duress, affirming the voluntariness of the statements.

3. Maintainability of the Suit:
The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable, but the lower court found it maintainable. The court noted that the plaintiff's suit was based on establishing title to the watches and not challenging the orders of the Central Excise authorities. The suit was framed to establish ownership and seek recovery of the watches or their value.

4. Proper Valuation of the Suit:
The lower court found the suit properly valued, and no arguments were advanced on this issue. The valuation was deemed appropriate for the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

5. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The court examined the timeline of events: the seizure on 21-10-1964, the dismissal of the revision petition on 9-9-1968, and the writ petition filed on 11-1-1969, dismissed on 23-3-1971. The plaintiff issued a suit notice on 6-5-1971 and filed the suit on 15-6-1972. The court held that the suit was based on title and not challenging the Central Excise authorities' orders. The court found that the plaintiff could not invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period of the writ petition, making the suit barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for recovery of specific movable property from the date of wrongful taking.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's findings that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the watches, the statements were voluntary, the suit was maintainable and properly valued, but ultimately barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →