| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 8 1969 SLD 8 1969 PLD 228 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1967, decision dated: 15th July 1968. dates of hearing: 4th and 5th June 1968
ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Raza Kazim for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Sharif for
Respondent No. 1. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for
Respondent No. 2
Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1967, decision dated: 15th July 1968. dates of hearing: 4th and 5th June 1968
ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ
Raza Kazim for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Sharif for
Respondent No. 1. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for
Respondent No. 2
COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
VS
COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER
Law: Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 2,2(g)&3
(a) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---Ss. 2(g) & 3 read with First Schd., item No. 15-A, Explanation 10 [inserted by Finance Act, 1966, S. 4 (iv)]-Excise duty on cotton fabrics-Expression "manufacture" used in S. 2 (g)-Comprehensive and wide enough to include all processes principal or ancillary which a finished product had to undergo before its completion-Subjection of coarse cloth to refining processes-Fully covered by expression "manufacture"-Manufacture of processed cotton cloth going through various processes of bleaching and calendaring etc., held, could legitimately be assessed to double duty in terms of Explanation 10, item 15- 4 First Sched. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- Explanation to statutory provision-Object of-Only to facilitate proper interpretation and to remove any possible confusion or misunderstanding---Explanation does not per se create or extinguish a liability. The object of adding an Explanation to a statutory provision is only to facilitate its proper interpretation and to remove any possible confusion or misunderstanding. It does not, per se create or extinguish a liability which is to be spelt out only from the main provision sought to be interpreted with the assistance of the Explanation. In other words, an Explanation is to be relied upon only as a useful guide or an aid to the construction of the main provision which in this case is the charging provision contained is section 3 of the Act read with item 15-A of the Schedule 1. It is well-settled that an Explanation does not enlarge the scope of the original section that it is supposed to explain. Superintendent of Central Excise, Layallpur v. Ch. Faqir Muhammad P L D 1959 S C 103 rel. Governor-General-in-Council v. Province of Madras A I R 1945 P C 98; Pakistan v. Muhammad Aqil P L D 1960 S C 4 and Superintendent, Central Excise, Lyallpur v. Ch. Faqir Muhammad P L D 1959 S C 103 ref. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.--Messrs Colony Sarhad----Textile Mills Limited, Rawalpindi (hereinafter called the petitioner felt aggrieved by the addition of Explanation 10 to item No. 15-A of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 introduced by section 4…
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