| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1727 2000 SLD 1727 2000 PTCL 614 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 11264, 8039, 18452, 18453 of 1995, 3706, 2375, 2376, 2507, 2508, 4273, 4274, 6340, 4024, 4028, 4033, 6942, 13443, 14139. 22255 and 22274 of 1996, decision dated: 19-10-1999
MR., JUSTICE MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM
Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate. Mr. S.M. Masud and Mr. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar Deputy Attorney-General
Writ Petitions Nos. 11264, 8039, 18452, 18453 of 1995, 3706, 2375, 2376, 2507, 2508, 4273, 4274, 6340, 4024, 4028, 4033, 6942, 13443, 14139. 22255 and 22274 of 1996, decision dated: 19-10-1999
MR., JUSTICE MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM
Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate. Mr. S.M. Masud and Mr. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar Deputy Attorney-General
Nazim Poly Sack Limited, Muslim Town,
VS
The Federation of Pakistan through Town, . Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others
Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944
Section: 96
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 33C
[CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 1944)]........Rule 96-ZZL was not ultra vires the provisions of sections 3, 3-C & 4 of Central Excises Act, 1944. The polypropylene strips were capable of being sold, therefore, the mere fact that they are not end product is not enough to save them from the excise duty.--See Sections 3 & 3-C of the Central Excises Act. 1944. CENTRAL EXCISES ACT, 1944--Sections 3 & 3-C....The polypropylene strips were capable of being sold, therefore, the mere fact that they are not end product is not enough to save them from the excise duty.--The same arguments as had been raised before this Court were put forward before the Peshawar High Court. The plea that rule 96-ZZL was violative of sections 3-CC and 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944 was rejected as being untenable. On a comparison of the new Schedule with the old Schedule, it was found that Item No. 08.03 in the old Schedule has been substituted by heading 54.04 in the new Schedule. It was observed that the polypropylene strips were capable of being sold, therefore, the mere fact that they are not an end product is not enough to save them from the excise duty. The learned Judges relying upon Sh. Fazal Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan and 3 others 1988 MLD 524 went on to hold that there was no prohibition of law against the levy of excise duty on the same material at more than one stage during the course of its manufacture. There is no prohibition of law against the levy of excise duty on the same material at more than one stage during the course of its manufacture. The polypropylene strips are synthetic textile material and fell under heading 54.04. of 1st schedule to the Customs Act, 1969. Rule 96-ZZL was not ultra vires the provisions of sections 3, 3-C & 4 of Central Excises Act, 1944. Section 4?.Rule 96-ZZL was not ultra vires the provisions of sections 3, 3-C & 4 of Central Excises Act, 1944. CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973..... Article 199. The demand without holding a factual inquiry as to whether strips were marketable was valid, the strips were dutiable irrespective of the actual weight and this is a question of fact which should have been…
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