9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed. 2. In this case, it is not disputed that the appellant/plaintiff firm was engaged in manufacturing of beedi in Sagar District and used to pay Central Excise duty. On 30.12.1989 during patrolling Respondent No.4 to 7, who were the officers of the Central Excise Division, posted at Sagar, found some bags of beedis in hand cart which were seized. Notice was issued to the appellant which was replied by the appellant. Thereafter, vide order dated 9.8.1990 passed by the Respondent No.2, fine of Rs. 1800/- was imposed on the appellant, adjudicating that the aforesaid beedis were removed from the manufacturing place without paying excise duty. In appeal, the said order was set aside by the Collector, Customs. 3. The grievances of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in discharging of their duty under the Central Excise Act, therefore, unless it is proved that the act was not bonafide, no legal proceedings can be initiated against the Respondents/defendants. Apart from it, the suit is time barred, hence it be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the act of the Respondents/defendants was not done maliciously and did not cause any harm to the reputation and business of the appellant. Apart from it, as per the provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed. 6. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming himself to be the agent of the appellant, admitted that the aforesaid beedis were the product of the appellant firm. Therefore, the matter was submitted to the adjudicating authority of the Department. S.K.Upadhyaya (PW-4) has stated that after filing the reply appellant did not appear on the date of hearing, therefore, on the basis of the material available on record, order Ex.D-16 was passed. There was no malice against the appellant. They acted in discharging their official duties in accordance with law. 8. 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, mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
