ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR versus RAMDEV TOBACCO COMPANY

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 25-01-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNflJR 
v. 
RAMDEV TOBACCO COMPANY 
JANUARY 25, 1991 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
c 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944/Central Excises and Salt Rules 
1944: Section 40(2)/Rules 32, 151, 160-'0ther legal proceedings'-
Whether includes-Issuance of show cause notice and initiation of con-
sequential adjudication proceedings. 
The appellant issued a notice calling upon the respondent who was 
a dealer in tobacco to show cause why duty should not be demanded 
under Rule 160 of the Central Excise· Rules, 1944 on the tobacco 
removed from his warehouse and not accounted for, and further to 
show cause why penalty should not be imposed for infraction of the 
D Rules. The respondent sent a detailed reply, and after hearing him the 
appellant came to the conclusion that the respondent had evaded pay-
ment of duty. Thereupon the appellant issued a demand notice for the 
duty payable and further imposed a penalty. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging 
E the order of the appellant. The learned Single Judge allowed the peti-
tion taking the view that the appellant's action was time barred because 
under section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 no suit, 
prosecution or other legal proceedings could be instituted for anything 
done or ordered to be done under the law after the expiration of six 
months from the accrual of the cause of action. The Division Bench 
F 
dismissed the appellant's appeal. 
Before this Court it was inter alia co~tended on behalf of the 
appellant that the expression 'other legal ptoceeding' is preceded by 
particular words of a certain genus, i.e., 'suit' and 'prosecution', indi-
cating reference to proceedings taken in courts only, and, therefore, the 
G wide words must be limited to things ejusdem generis and must take 
colour from the prece«}ing words and receive a limited meaning to 
exclude proceedings of the type in question. 
Allowing the app~l ot'the Revenue, this Court, 
. H 
HELD: (1) Th~ rule of ejusdem generis is genera~ invoked where 
126 
>---
.... 
ASSTI. COLLECTOR v. RAMDEV TOBACCO CO. 
127 
the scope and ambit of the general words which follow certain speeific 
~ words (which have some common characteristic and constitute a genus) 
-is required to be determined. [131G] 
(2) The cardinal rule of interpretation is to allow the general 
words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the 
statute gives a different indication or such meaning is likely to lead to 
absurd results in which case their meaning can be restricted by the 
application of the rule of ejusdem generis and they may be required to 
fall in line with the specific things designated by the preceding words. 
But unless there is a genus which can be comprehended from the pre-
ceding words, there can be question of invoking this rule. Nor can this 
rule have any application where the general words precede specific 
words. [1328-C] 
(3) The wide expression 'other legal proceeding' must be read 
...... ,7' , ejusdem generis with the preced-ing words 'suit' and 'prosecution' as 
they constitute a genus. [133H] 
(4) 'Suit' or 'prosecution' are those judicial or legal proceedings 
which are lodged in a court of law and not before any executive autho-
rity, even if a statutory one. [132E-F] 
(5) The penalty and adjudication proceedings in the instant case 
did not fall within the expression 'other legal proceeding' employed in 
section 40(2) of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Art. 22 of 
the 1973, and therefore, the said proceediqgs were not subject to the 
limitation prescribed by the said sub-section. [133H; 134A] 
Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju &Anr. etc., [1973] S.C.R. 
812; Universal Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, [1977] E.L.T. (J92); 
Amar Chandra v. Excise Collector, Tripura, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1863; 
_, C. C. Industries & Ors. v. H.N. Ray & Anr., [1980] E.L.T. 442, refer-
red to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2341 
A 
B 
c 
-n 
E 
F 
of 1978. 
G 
-- ___. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.1977 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 358of1976. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, P. Panneshwaran 
and Dilip Tandon for the Appellant. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 
A.S. Nambiar and B. Parthasarthy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AHMADI, J. This appeal, on certificate, is directed agai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.