2019 (8) TMI 675 - HC - Central Excise

Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff claiming ₹ 2 Lakhs as compensation for the loss of reputation and goodwill caused by the officers of Central Excise - allegation of Clandestine removal - Bidis - - HELD THAT - On behalf of the appellant, the evidence has been adduced but there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents/defendants officers have any intention to cause any harm to the appellant firm. In the absence of it, merely any error in conducting the aforesaid proceedings with regard to imposition of fine against which the remedy of appeal is also available and was availed by the appellant, it cannot be said that the aforesaid proceedings were intended by the Respondents/defendants to cause harm to the reputation and business of the appellant/plaintiff. In the circumstances, the findings of the learned trial Court do not require any interference, as the same are just and proper. When the respondents acted in good faith under the provisions of the Central Excise Act or rule made there under, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Respondents/defendants. Thus the learned trial Court has not committed any error in adjudicating that the suit cannot lie in view of the provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act against the Respondents/defendants - appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of suit claiming compensation for loss of reputation and goodwill.
2. Allegation of malicious proceedings and harm to reputation by Central Excise officers.
3. Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit.
4. Interpretation of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Suit
The appellant filed a suit seeking compensation for loss of reputation and goodwill due to the actions of Central Excise officers. The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that the officers' actions were not malicious and did not harm the appellant's reputation or business. The court also held that as per Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Issue 2: Allegation of Malicious Proceedings
The appellant contended that the seized beedis were not theirs and that the proceedings against them were malicious, causing harm to their reputation and business. However, witnesses testified that the seized beedis matched the appellant's product label, and an agent of the appellant confirmed their ownership. The officers acted in good faith and followed proper procedures, leading to the imposition of a fine, which was later set aside on appeal.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Civil Court
The Respondents argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the officers were acting in discharge of their duties under the Central Excise Act. They maintained that unless malice was proven, no legal proceedings could be initiated against them. The trial court concurred, citing Section 40 of the Act which provides immunity to officers acting in good faith.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 40
Section 40 of the Central Excise Act shields officers from legal proceedings for actions done in good faith in pursuance of the Act. The appellate court affirmed that since the officers acted in good faith and followed statutory provisions, no legal proceedings could be maintained against them. The court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit based on this provision.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The judgment and decree of the trial court were affirmed, emphasizing the protection granted to officers under Section 40 of the Central Excise Act when acting in good faith.

← Previous Next →