Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 3(1),2(21a),7,16(1),36(1),FirstSched:Tab le-II,EntryNo.6-7

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: FirstSched

ORDER Through this appeal the Registered Person has challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-4-2012 passed by the learned CIR(Appeals-II). Islamabad which is arising out of the Order-in-Original No.35/2011 dated 17-10-2011 passed by the adjudicating authority. The following grounds have been agitated:- "(2) That the learned CIR (A) was not justified in upholding the invocation of the assessment provisions of the Sales Tax (Act, 1990, including section 36(1), since such provisions are not applicable to assessment of Federal Excise Duty on telecommunication services in Sales Tax Mode. (3) Notwithstanding the above ground, the learned CIR (A) was not justified in upholding the charging of amount received as reimbursement of interconnect cost of Federal Excise Duly; (4) Notwithstanding the above ground, the learned CIR (A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order in ignorance of the fact that Federal Excise Duty on the amount of interconnect has already been paid by the final consumer i.e. the calling party and that its charging again would tantamount to double taxation which is confiscatory and illegal. (5) Notwithstanding the above stance, the learned CIR(A) was not justified in ignoring the fact that certain periods related to which tax has been assessed were barred by time. (6) Notwithstanding the above grounds, the learned CIR (A) was not justified in ignoring the fact that the question of levy of default surcharge and penalty does not arise as neither any loss of revenue nor any mens rea was -involved in the instant case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the scrutiny of sales tax/ federal excise return the DCIR noted that Federal Excise duty on the interconnect services was not paid by the Registered Person. A show-cause notice vide dated 22-3-2011 was issued to the Registered Person and reply found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the DCIR charged Federal Excise duty along with default surcharge and penalty. 3. Aggrieved of this treatment, the Registered Person preferred appeal before the learned CIR(A), who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30-4-2012 confirmed the action of the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Audit, Zone-II),…