JUDGMENT : The sole point on which this appeal is admitted reads as under "Whether the bar of limitation contained in Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as it stood before the Amendment by Act 22 of 1973) applies to penalty proceedings taken under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules." 2. This question stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Ramdev Tobacco Company - (1991) 2 SCC 119 wherein it was held that the expression "other legal proceedings" must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words `suit' and `prosecution' as they constitute a genus. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the assessee's case, which is under appeal before us, was specifically referred to and approved. Therefore, the question raised in the instant case stands fully covered and concluded and the appeal must, therefore, fail. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.