Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1865 2006 SLD 1865 2006 SCMR 1245
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 813-L to 820-L and 835-L of 2005, decision dated: 27-07-2006 (On appeal from the order, dated 7-3-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.As. Nos.162 to 170 of 2001)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE,

VS

Messrs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD and others

Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944

Section: 10(1)(2)(3),12,13

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32

[Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......Rr 10(1)(2)(3), 12 & 13---S.R.O. 547(I)/96 dated 1-6-1996---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.32-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Evasion of excise duty---Show-cause notice under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944--Question of limitation prescribed in Central Excise Rules, 1944---Department issued show-cause notice to Sugar Mills under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, on ground that the latter while exporting sugar had evaded excise duty---Sugar Mills contended; that show-cause notices issued by Department were illegal and beyond limitation; that there was no specific allegation in respect of tax evasion falling under Rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944; that Department had knowledge about export of sugar by Mills but no action was taken against them, knowing well that there was no violation of any provision but subsequently vague notices were issued by Department to cover limitation provided in Rule 10 (1)(2)(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that provision of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 was similar to that of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944---High Court while sustaining contentions of Mills allowed appeals of Mills---Leave to appeal was granted to Department to examine provisions of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 and ratio of s pronounced in Assistant Collector of Customs and others v. Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 and Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise Lahore v. Zamindara Paper and Board Mills C.P. No. 702-L of 2003. Assistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 and Collector of Sales Tax and C.E. Lahore v. Zamindara Paper and Board Mills and others C.P. No.702-L of 2003 rel. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---These petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 7-3-2005. It is to be noted that matter relates to alleged evasion of excise duty falling within the mischief of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department issued show-cause notices to the petitioners calling upon them to show as to why proposed action for non-payment of the central…
🔒
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