Law:

Section:

Central Excise Act, 1944 (I of 1944)-- ----S. 4(2)--Customs Act, 1969, S. 202--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Value of goods for levying of excise duty--Determination--Purpose of "retail price"--Interpretation--Controversy between revenue and assesses--Provisions--Manufacturer has to include the charges and taxes in retail price for levy of excise duty--High Court was not called upon to determine as to whether excise duty would also be included in fixing the `retail price'--Tax must in all situations be taken to include `duty' whether or not such inclusion can be inferred would depend upon context in which terms are used in statutory provisions--Held: Excise duty is not to be included for the purpose of determining the retail price on which excise duty is to be charged--In this situations interpretation favorable to tax payer is to be preferred--Appeals were dismissed. [Pp. 130, 131 & 132] A, B & D Interpretation of Statute-- ----Tax and Duty--"Tax and duty" do not generally mean the same thing and are to be construed accordingly. [P. 131] C Judgment Nasir-ul-Mulk, J.--By this single judgment Appeals No. 1388 and 1389 of 2002, 410 to 418 of 2005, 266 and 267 of 2006 and 395 of 2005 are disposed of as they all involve the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Civil Appeals Nos. 1388 and 1389 of 2002 arise from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court and the remaining from the judgments of the Lahore High Court. Both the High Courts have accepted the point of view put forth by the assessees on the interpretation of the said provision. The High Court of Sindh in the Pakistan Beverages. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (C.P. No. 1926 of 2002) decided on 14.1.2005 had concurred with opinion of the other two High Courts. The said judgment, however, has not been assailed before this Court. 2. Leave to appeal in these cases was first granted to the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2002 (Pakistan through Secretary Finance, etc. Vs. M/s. Lucky Cement) to determine the correct construction of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, which alongwith…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492