Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Excise |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Jan-12-1989 |
| Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982 |
| S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J. |
| 1989(22)LC640(Bombay) |
| Shakti Metal Industries |
| The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. |
| Appeal dismissed |
.....may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under section 44 of the code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically..........otherwise it appears from exhibit 'f' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. we are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. if and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.2. in this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. in view of the dismissal of the appeal, notice of motion no. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. there will be no order as to costs of the motion also.
S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.
1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.
2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.