| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1367 2004 SLD 1367 2004 PTD 791 |
Sindh High Court
Special Central Excise Appeal No.58 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003
S.A. SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Chaudhry M. Iqbal for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents
Special Central Excise Appeal No.58 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003
S.A. SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Chaudhry M. Iqbal for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents
Messrs SUPER CAN through Proprietor, Khawaja Tariq Rauf
VS
CUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX and 2 others
Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 2
(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 2(25) & 3(1)---Tin containers---Levy of excise duty---Act of cutting tin plates to size, which were ultimately moulded and converted into containers, was a process incidental to manufacture of tin container, which was the final product---Such act of cutting tin plates to size would amount to manufacture within definition of term "manufacture" as given in S. 2(25) of Central Excises Act, 1944. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 992 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26-7-2003, passed by the learned Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi in Central Excise Appeal No. CE-56 of 2001. According to the appellant, the following questions of law arise out of the order of Tribunal, requiring our consideration:-- "(1) Whether is the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench-I is misconceived in holding that the item constitutes an excisable goods in terms of the charging section 3(1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 when this time undisputedly does not appear in the First Schedule to Act? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench-I is misconceived in holding that the process of cutting the tin plates to the required sizes comes within the ambit of definition of the term `manufacture' as enumerated in section 2(25) of the Central Excises Act, 1944? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench-I misconceived in interpreting the process of cutting tin plates to required sizes as to be covered by the definition of the term manufacture as enumerated in section 2(25) of the Act contrary to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd. reported as PLD 1991 SC 993? (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the…
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