1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS CUSTOMS CUSTOMS EXCISE EXCISE EXCISE APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2000 APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2000 APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2000 The The The Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of Central Excise .,.Applicant of Central Excise .,.Applicant of Central Excise .,.Applicant Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai V V V vs vs vs M/s M/s M/s Super Mech Engg. .. Super Mech Engg. .. Super Mech Engg. .. Respondent Respondent Respondent Mr.P.S.Jetley Mr.P.S.Jetley Mr.P.S.Jetley i.b Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi i.b Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi i.b Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi for for for Applicant Applicant Applicant CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : : : 7th June, 2007 7th June, 2007 7th June, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared appeared appeared for for for the respondent though served. We have the respondent though served. We have the respondent though served. We have perused perused perused the order dated 25th March, 2000 passed by the order dated 25th March, 2000 passed by the order dated 25th March, 2000 passed by the the the tribunal. tribunal. tribunal. 2.2.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of Having regard to the facts and circumstances of Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the the the case, case, case, called for the statement of the case with called for the statement of the case with called for the statement of the case with regard regard regard to the following substantial questions of to the following substantial questions of to the following substantial questions of law law law : : : Whether Whether Whether the Tribunal was justified in the Tribunal was justified in the Tribunal was justified in allowing allowing allowing the benefit under Notification the benefit under Notification the benefit under Notification No.38/97 No.38/97 No.38/97 CE dated 27.6.1997 as amended on CE dated 27.6.1997 as amended on CE dated 27.6.1997 as amended on 2.6.198 2.6.198 2.6.198 by Notification No.9/98, though by Notification No.9/98, though by Notification No.9/98, though prior prior prior to the amendment the goods were to the amendment the goods were to the amendment the goods were actually actually actually cleared on 21.5.1998 and 27.5.1998 cleared on 21.5.1998 and 27.5.1998 cleared on 21.5.1998 and 27.5.1998 Application Application Application stands disposed of accordingly. stands disposed of accordingly. stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, J) J) J) (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J) J) J) 2