Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd.

.....desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest 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 granted by the legislature to the police officer. of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the magistrate directs investigation under section 156 (3) of the code by taking recourse to the provisions of section 438 of the code by approaching the court of session or the high court for such relief. thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not .....order1. heard rival, parties.2. learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court.a. whether the assessee i.e. the supplier of inputs to the job worker is liable to pay central excise duty on the scrap generated at the job workers end, which is not received back from the job workers within the specified time in terms of notification no. 214/86-ce dated 25.3.1986 as amended r/w rule 4(5)(a) of cenvat credit rules?b. whether scrap generated at the job workers end out of the processing of the inputs is required to be returned to the supplier and, if it is not returned back whether the supplier of inputs is required to pay appropriate central excise thereon?3. having heard rival parties and having examined the findings recorded in the order in original, it is not in dispute, that the assessee had paid duty on the scrap generated at the factory of the job worker for the period april 1999 to march 2000. there is no liability on the principal manufacturer- respondent after 31st march 2000 in view of amended rule 57ac of the cenvat credit rules. in view of this finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.