Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 850 2003 SLD 850 2003 PTD 95
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.369 and 370-P of 2001, decision dated: 26-09-2002 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-5-2001 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition 1144 of 1997)
, JAVED IQBAL, SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND FALAK SHER, JJ
M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions) Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in both Petitions)

PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan Islamabad

VS

Messrs LUCKY CEMENT LTD., PESHAWAR

Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)

Section: 2

(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 2(17) & 4(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--­Excise duty, inclusion in retail price---Duties of excise on cement were declared by High Court not to form part of retail price and the manufacturers of cement were not liable to pay such duties of excise forming part of retail price of cement---Contentions of the Authorities were that the provisions contained in Ss.4(2) & 2(17) of Central Excises Act, 1944, had been misconstrued and misinterpreted by ignoring its true signification, purport and meaning which resulted in serious miscarriage of. justice, that the excise duty being tax was included in `retail price' as envisaged in S.4(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, which included all taxes and charges which aspect of the matter escaped notice; that `retail price' had not been understood in its true perspective which included excise duty that provisions as contained in Art. 199 of the Constitution could not have been invoked without approaching forums concerned .available under the hierarchy of excise laws for the redressal of their grievance, if any, and that the manufacturers could not be considered as aggrieved party because it collected duty from the customers which was credited to the public exchequer and such duties were paid by the consumers and thus Constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions raised by the Authorities. G.G. in Council v. Madras Province AIR (32) 1945 PC 98; Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 SCMR 128;. Altas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1979 Kar. 545; Atlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central excise and Land Customs PLD 1984 SC 86; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) PLD 1992 .SCMR 847 Income-tax Officer v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108; Ejaz Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar, 604; Zafar Ali Khan v. Government of Pakistan 1997 PTD 1829; Indo Ashi Glass Company v. Income-tax. Officer 1978 PTD 2860; Central Board of Revenue v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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