1975 (1) TMI 37 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit has been properly laid against the Union of India?
2. Whether proper notice under Section 80 CPC has been issued?
3. Whether the suit is barred under section 40(1) and (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944?
4. Whether the seizure of the plaintiff's goods was improper and against rules and regulations?
5. Whether the goods were damaged because of the Act of the defendants?
6. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of lapses in not taking the delivery of the goods and is not entitled to damages?
7. Whether the plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation and is entitled to damages and if so, at what amount?
8. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the consignment and is entitled to claim the value thereof?
9. Whether the defendants have acted in excess of their power and authority and are liable for damages?
10. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit has been properly laid against the Union of India?
The court did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the bar of limitation under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. Whether proper notice under Section 80 CPC has been issued?
This issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, as the case was primarily decided on the basis of the limitation period under Section 40(2) of the Act.

3. Whether the suit is barred under section 40(1) and (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944?
The court concluded that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The seizure took place on 25-5-1966, and the suit was instituted on 11-2-1967, which was beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed by the Act. The court emphasized that Section 40(2) applies to any person and does not require the act to be done in good faith, unlike Section 40(1).

4. Whether the seizure of the plaintiff's goods was improper and against rules and regulations?
The court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the suit was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 40(2) of the Act.

5. Whether the goods were damaged because of the Act of the defendants?
This issue was not specifically addressed, as the court's decision was based on the limitation period under Section 40(2) of the Act.

6. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of lapses in not taking the delivery of the goods and is not entitled to damages?
The court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue, as the primary reason for dismissal was the bar of limitation.

7. Whether the plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation and is entitled to damages and if so, at what amount?
The court did not address this issue in detail due to the dismissal of the suit based on the limitation period.

8. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the consignment and is entitled to claim the value thereof?
This issue was not specifically analyzed, as the case was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 40(2) of the Act.

9. Whether the defendants have acted in excess of their power and authority and are liable for damages?
The court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the third respondent did not act in good faith. However, it concluded that Section 40(2) would still apply, as it does not require good faith for its applicability.

10. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, as the suit was barred by limitation under Section 40(2) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the suit was found to be barred by limitation under Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court did not find it necessary to address the other issues due to this conclusion. The parties were instructed to bear their respective costs in the appeal.