Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2283 2010 SLD 2283 2010 SCMR 241 2010 PTR 4
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1304 of 2006, decision dated: 30-09-2009, (On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-10-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2002)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 Nemo for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, MULTAN

VS

Messrs HOLIDAY INN, MULTAN and others

Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)

Section: 3B,36C

(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3-B & 36-C---Notification S.R.O.456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Central excise duty---Determination---PCT Heading 9810.1010, 9801.1020 and 9801.1030---Distinction---Respondent-company paid Central Excise Duty on various functions at the rate of 12-1/2% instead of 20%, therefore, authorities sought recovery of short deposit along with additional duty under S.3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944---Appellate Tribunal partly allowed appeal filed by respondent-company and waived off additional duty and penalty imposed by authorities---Validity---Word "function" was not defined under Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Rules made thereunder nor so given in Notification S.R.O.456(I)/96, dated 13-64996, therefore, the same had to be interpreted and understood in its ordinary meaning and reasonably in the sense in which it had been used in relevant PCT Heading referred to by supplying ordinary sense and interpretation---Keeping in view the percentage of the charges, the manifest wisdom appeared to be that the functions related to matrimonial ceremonies were chargeable at a high rate of duty for the services rendered for such functions which excluded ordinary functions chargeable at less percentage of duty--Interpretation made by High Court of the word "function" used in PCT Heading 9801.1030 was in accord with rules of interpretation of statutes by applying the principle of "ejusdum generis" and therefore, no exception could be taken thereto---Appeal was dismissed. ORDER RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 21-10-2003 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore accepting Civil Appeal No.8 of 2002 filed by respondent No.1 under section 36-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the judgment, dated 15-2-2001 of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. 2. The respondent is a well-known member of chain of hotels by the name of Holiday Inn Hotel, Multan which is centrally air-conditioned; rendering various services and functions, including matrimonial gatherings etc. vide order dated 13-6-2000 Additional Collector, Multan directed…
🔒
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