Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 370 2003 SLD 370 2003 PTD 922
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Custom Appeal No. K-985 of 2001, decision dated: 6-06-2002
ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNIAL) AND ABDUR RASHID A. SHAIKH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Jahangir Khan, Consultant for Appellant. Muhammad Moosa, D.R. for
Respondent

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 3(5)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 30,31A,3

Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)

Section: 9,37,

[Sales Tax Act, 1951].....Section 3(5) Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.9, fifth proviso Customs Act (IV of 1969) Time and manner of payment Difference between S.3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 and the fifth proviso to R.9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is that the former had only prescribed the machinery of the Customs Act, 1969 to sales tax by employing the expression, `payable' whereas the latter had purported to prescribe both the charging and machinery provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 to central excise duty by using the words 'charged and collected'. (b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) S. 37 Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.9, fifth proviso Power of Central Government to make rules Delegation of power Creation of charge Power delegated under S.37 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 could not be extended to creation of a charge Even if S.37 of the Central Excises Act, 1944, hypothetically speaking had delegated to the Central Board of Revenue the power to introduce a charge or a levy, the said delegation would be bad because the power to impose or introduce a tax, levy or a fee is only legislative function which could not be delegated Term "charged" used in the fifth proviso to R.9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is read down and was unenforceable. M. Afzal & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1977 Lah. 1327 and Abdul Rahim v. U.B.L. PLD 1997 Kar. 62 rel. (c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) S. 3 Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 30 & 31 A S.R.O.995(I)/99, dated 31 8 1999 Duties specified in the First Sched. of the Customs Act to be levied Imported goods Rate of duty Central excise duty was collected at import stage by extension of provisions of S.31 A of the Customs Act, 1969 in the light of S.R.O.995(I)/99, dated 31 8 1999 Validity Sections 30 & 31 A of the Customs Act, 1969 could not be extended to central excise duty since there was no comparable provision in the Central Excises Act, 1944 Principle of promissory estoppel and vested rights in respect of central excise duty especially at import stage is applicable while S.31 A of the Customs Act, 1969 does not alter the position with regard to central excise duty Fifth proviso to R.9 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