Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3064 1970 SLD 3064 = 1970 PLD 136
Dacca High Court
Civil Petitions Nos. 326, 340, 342, 358, 360, 372 and 373 of 1967, decided on 12th December 1967.
Presented By: Salahuddin Ahmed and A. B. Mahmud Husain, JJ

PAKISTAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATION Petitioner

VERSUS

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, EAST ZONE, CHITTAGONG AND 6 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)

Section: 5 (2)

(a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), 1st Sched., Item 18, as amended by Finance Act (V of 1965), S. 5 (2) and Finance Act (XII of 1967), S. 5 (8)--Jute m2nufacture-Duty "Sacking" and "Hessian", distinguished - Fiscal statutes -Interpretation. "Hessian" and "Sacking" are two established world wide specifications of jute manufactures universally accepted and recognised by all concerned including the relevant authorities of the Government of Pakistan. There can be no hesitation in holding that until the amendment of the said item 18 of the First Schedule to the Act was made by the Finance Act of 1967 "Hessian" and "Sacking" including its kindred variety were always treated as two different categories of jute manufactures and they were well recognised and well understood as such and consequently under the said unamended item 18 of the First Schedule to the Act, "Sacking", heavy cess and "cement bags", whether of plain weave or twill weave, fell under the second category, namely, "all other manufactures" and they were not included under the head "Hessian". Besides the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 being a fiscal statute the rule of strict inter pretation applies and unless "Sacking" fell clearly under the head "Hessian" it could not be charged at a higher rate applicable to "Hessian" only. From the foregoing it is patent that in every sphere, official or otherwise, "Hessian" and "Sacking" were maintained under two distinct categories and therefore, even if it could be held that it was possible for "sacking" to come under the heading "Hessian", both being plain weave fabric, a construc tion of the statute that is favourable to the tax-payer should be preferred. The Commissioner of Income-tax, East Pakistan v. Messrs Hossen Kasam Dada, Karachi P L D 1961 S C 375 ; Muhammad Younus v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistani and others P L D 1964 S C 113 ; Crawford on Interpretation of Statutes, 1940 Edn., p. 321; Craies on Interpretation of Statutes, 6th Edn., p. 614 ; Maxwell on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register