| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1866 2006 SLD 1866 2006 SCMR 1403 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.863 of 2000, decision dated: 19-12-2005. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995)hearing DATE : 19-12-2005
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ
Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Muhammad Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Appeal No.863 of 2000, decision dated: 19-12-2005. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995)hearing DATE : 19-12-2005
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ
Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Muhammad Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary Ministry of Finance and 2 others
VS
SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI
Law: Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 3,FirstSched
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944
Section: 7,9,52,236238
[Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944)].......S 3 & First Sched.---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 9, 52, 236 & 238---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Product "Leucophor"---Chargeability to duty---Laboratory test of such product showing same to be an Optical Bleaching Agent (Flourescent Brightening Agent)---Demand of duty by Revenue after classifying such product on the basis of test report under Entry No.04.03 of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether glazes, luster, lacquers, polishes and their ancillaries in any form would fall within ambit of Entry No.04.03 and were chargeable to excise duty; whether "Leucophor" being of such category would fall within scope of such Entry; whether petitioner had contravened Rr.7, 9, 52, 236 & 238 of Central Excise Rules, 1944; and whether "Leucophor" and "Tinopal CBS-XD" were comparable commodities and would be treated alike. (b) Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 3 & First Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199---Constitutional petition before High Court---Product "Leucophor"---Chargeability to duty---Laboratory test of such product showing same to be an Optical Bleaching Agent (Flourescent Brightening Agent)---Demand.of duty by Revenue after classifying such product on basis of test report under Entry No.04.03 of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---High Court in constitutional petition set aside such demand holding product "Leucophor" not a "dye" while relying on its previous decision, wherein product "Tinopal" was found on basis of test reports to be an "Optical Bleaching Agent", "Flourescent Brightening Agent" and not a "dye"---Validity---Revenue, Appellate Authority and Member (Judicial) after scrutinizing entire record/evidence had concluded that product "Leucophor" was a "dye" chargeable to duty under such Entry---No test report was given in the present case showing "Leucophor" not capable of dyeing, while in case of "Tinopal", there existed test reports showing "Tinopal" not capable of dyeing---High Court ought to have relied on findings recorded by Tribunals below and might…
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