9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Central Excise, Patna. On the 26th June, 1948, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, confiscated the seized tobacco ordered that the same be released on payment of the duty imposed and a redemption fine of ₹ 200/- in lieu of confiscation. The Collector of Central Excise imposed a further penalty of ₹ 100/- upon the plaintiff. This order was communicated to the plaintiff on 6-7-1948. The plaintiff alleged that he deposited the amount by two challans on 20-4-1949. Thereafter the plaintiff sent letters to the Department of Central Excise for, delivery of the seized tobacco to him, but the tobacco was not returned. The plaintiff has, accordingly, brought the suit against the Union of India for return of the seized t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the argument addressed by the learned Government Pleader is not correct and section 40 Of Act I of 1944 does apply to this claim of the plaintiff. Section 33 of the Act deals with the power of adjudication and states as follows: 33. Power of adjudication. -- Whereby the rules made under this Act anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged: (a) without limit, by a Collector of Central Excise. (b) up to confiscation of goods not exceeding five hundred rupees in value and imposition of penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees by an Assistant Collector of Central Excise: Provided that the Central Board of Revenue may, in the case of any officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on what date the confiscated tobacco was sold by the Central Excise Department, but It appears from exhibit C that the amount of sale proceeds was deposited in the Treasury on the 21-6-1950. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the sale took place long after 20-4-1949, when the plaintiff made the deposit. If this assumption is correct, it follows that the officers of the Department of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to sell the confiscated tobacco in the manner they have done. In other words, the action of the officers of the Central Excise Department in selling the confiscated tobacco was clearly ultra vires and such action on their part cannot be said to be anything done or ordered to be done under this Act within the mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be determined with reference to what would have been the liability of the East Indian Company were it still in existence. It was held by Jenkins, C. J. and Aston, J. that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as the Chief Constable seized the goods not in obedience to an order of the executive Government but in performance of a statutory power vested in him by the Legislature and that the seizure of the goods was not in any sense productive of benefit to the revenues of the Bombay Government nor was it a transaction out of which profit could be derived. It was further observed in this case that in order that a suit should lie against the Secretary of State in Council it must be one in which the East India Company might have been ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
