| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 1314 1994 SLD 1314 1994 CLC 994 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7463 of 1989, decided on 14th December, 1993
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J
S.M. Zafar with Zahid Hussain Syed for Petitioner. Ch Maqbool AhmadII Dy. AG. for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 7463 of 1989, decided on 14th December, 1993
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J
S.M. Zafar with Zahid Hussain Syed for Petitioner. Ch Maqbool AhmadII Dy. AG. for
Respondents.
KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD.
VS
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
Law:
Section:
a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.3---Law of Limitation bars the remedy only, it does not extinguish the right.---[Limitation]. (b) Central Excise Rules, 1944--- ----R.11---Word "error" as appearing in R. 11, Central Excise Rules, 1944--- Connotation---"Error" is not synonymous with "mistake"---Word "error" in R. 11, Central Excise Rules, 1944, means some clerical or arithmetical error--Word "misconstruction" as occurring in R. 11, Central Excise Rules, 1944, is not to be understood in the technical sense of misconstruction or misinterpretation of a provision of law or notification---Word "misconstruction" as used in R. 11, Central Excise Rules, 1944, in the context of inadvertence or error, connotes an erroneous building up or compiling and calculating in the arithmetical sense only; it is merely intended to resolve or finalise disputes as to accounting.---[Words and phrases]. M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1980 SC 1037; Ceat Tyres of India Limited v. Union of India and others 1980 ELT 563 (Bom.); Dilichand Shreelal v Collector of Central Excise and others (1986) 26 ELT 298 (Cal.); Khardah Company Ltd. v. Union of India 1983 ELT 2159 (Cal.); Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal AIR 1959 SC 135 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 ref. (c) Central Excise Rules, 1944-. ----R. 11---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 72---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 96---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Applicability of R.11, Central Excise Rules, 1944---Refund of amount of tax paid under mistake of law or fact or under compulsion---Remedy---Rule 11, Central Excise Rules would not. apply to a case where amount of tax was paid under mistake of law or fact or under compulsion---Order rejecting claim of refund being quasi judicial order, its validity can be challenged in Constitutional petition---Claim for refund of the duty which fell within three years, from date of demand was refundable. Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules does not apply to a case where the amount of tax was paid under a mistake of law or fact or under compulsion; that the claim of refund of any amount realized without any authority of law,…
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