| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 1844 2006 SLD 1844 2006 PTD 319 |
Lahore High Court
Customs Appeal No.153 of 2001, heard on 24-10-2005
NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ
Aftab Hassan for Appellant Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for
Respondent
Customs Appeal No.153 of 2001, heard on 24-10-2005
NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ
Aftab Hassan for Appellant Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for
Respondent
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE
VS
COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION
Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 4
(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(1)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7 & 9---Central Excise General Order No.53 of 1967, para. 3---Determination of value for purposes of duty---Supply of beverage concentrate by manufacturer to franchised bottlers in same vicinity---Addition of incidental charges while determining value of concentrate---Scope---General body of retail traders was situated only next door---Due to proximity of location of both manufacturer and franchised bottlers, no octroi post was involved, thus, no duty or toll tax would be payable by franchise holder---Only handling and transportation charges could be added to value of concentrate as sundry charges for purpose of fixation of excise duty. PLD 1995 SC 659; Pakistan through Secretary Finance and another v. Kohat Cement Company and others PLD 1995 SC 659; Atlas Battery Limited Karachi v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs Circle `C' Karachi PLD 1984 SC 86 and Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. 2002 PTD 1989 ref. ORDER NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---In this further appeal under section 36-C (Appeal to High Court) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 the Revenue through Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Lahore claims that following questions of law arise out of the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 31-1-2001:--- "(1) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in disallowing the addition of incidental charges in determining the value for purposes of duty? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal was right and had any justification to depart from the law prescribed in section 4(1) of Central Excise and Sale. Act, 1944 and disallowed the inclusion of incidental charges in the calculation of value for purposes of levy of excise duty? (3) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in denying the inclusion of charge in determination of value for purposes of levy of excise duty when the language of section 4(1) of Central Excise Act is very clear and the word "whatsoever" has been used which means charges of all types, transportation, packing, repacking handling loading, unloading and…
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