Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3149 1970 SLD 3149 = 1970 PLD 439
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 23-D of 1967, decided on 10th July 1970.
Hamoodur Rahman C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Mardan Industries Limited Civil Appeal No. 3-P of 1965 ref. Asrarul Hossain, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan (Maqsoodur Rahman, Advocate Supreme            Court with him) instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Dr. Kamal Hossain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdur Rab-II, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.

Presented By: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND 3 OTHHERS--Appellants

VERSUS

AZIZUDDIN INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG ---Respondent

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

Section: 12

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 14th December 1965, in Petition No. 644 of 1964). (a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)------ -----S. 12-A and General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21-Power to grant exemption under S. 12-A of Act (I of 1944) as well as power to withdraw any such exemption under S. 21 of Act (X of 1897)-Not circum scribed by any conditions-Court, therefore, not entitled to make its own surmises as to propriety of reasons motivating Government issuing notification in exercise of its powers. The exercise of power under section 12-A to grant exemption as well as the power to withdraw the exemption under section 21 of the General Clauses Act is unconditional. It is, therefore, not open to Courts to go behind the Notification by Government, on the ground that the exercise of power by the Central Govern ment was improper. However, if the grant of exemption was subject to the existence of certain conditions and the withdrawal of exemption was also made conditional on the happening of certain eventuality, then the Government could not withdraw the exemption unless the requirement of law was fulfilled. As no such conditions are provided in section 12-A the High Court has no authority to make its own surmises as to the propriety of reasons which had motivated the issue of the Notification by the Government. (b) Interpretation of statutes---- ---Notification under Rules Executive authority, cannot, in exercise of its rule-making power or power to amend, vary or rescind earlier order, take away rights vested in citizens by law-Person acquiring vested right of exemption from levy of excise duty on all goods for period of 4 years under Notification S. R. O. 35(R)/61, dated 30-6-61 could not be deprived of his right by Notification S. R. O. 31(R)/64 dated 28-2-64-Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 12-A Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 8--General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21. The question was whether exemption from excise duty granted by the Central Board of Revenue by its Notification S. R. O. 35(R)/61, dated 30-6-61 could be withdrawn or curtailed by its Notification S. R. O. 31(R)/64,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register