9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to imposing of fine amount was done maliciously and conducted without having any reasonable nexus, ignoring the relevant law and common prudence, just to harm the reputation and adversely affect the business of the appellant and by the act of the respondents/defendants, the reputation and business of the appellant/plaintiff has been damaged, therefore, the Respondents/Defendants are liable to pay ₹ 2 lakhs as compensation. Therefore, the suit was filed to recover the aforesaid amount. 4. The Respondents/defendants contested the aforesaid case of the appellant on the ground that they bonafidely conducted the whole proceedings in discharging their duties as the officer of the Central Excise Department, under statutory p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted very grave legal error in holding that the appellant failed to proved that the act of the Respondents/defendants was malafidely done and caused harm to the reputation and business of the appellant. Apart from it, learned trial Court has also wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and committed illegality in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. At the time of hearing of the appeal, none was present on behalf of the Respondents/defendants, hence the appeal was heard ex-parte. 7. Having heard the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record, it is found that the proceedings conducted against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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. 9. In the circumstances, in this case, provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also attracted which are quoted as under :- 40. Protection of action taken under the Act- 1. (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
