2003 PLP 2819 (PTD)
Messrs MALIK GHEE AND COOKING OIL MILLS Versus COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES. TAX, FAISALABAD and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2819 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs MALIK GHEE AND COOKING OIL MILLS Versus COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES. TAX, FAISALABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2819 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2819 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2819 (PTD) (Messrs MALIK GHEE AND COOKING OIL MILLS Versus COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES. TAX, FAISALABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Naveed Sohail for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Plastic pouches containing oil/ghee‑‑‑Scope of tax‑‑‑Oil/ghee in plastic pouches is obtained as a result of continuous process of manufacturing‑‑‑Such pouches are neither distinctly or separately manu factured nor capable of being sealed, weighed or stored separately‑‑Such pouches once having been filled with oil/ghee become part of product and lose their independent identity on the use of product‑‑‑Such pouches, after use of oil/ghee marketed in them, are simply a refuse and there is no chance of their repetitive use‑‑‑Such pouches, thus, were liable to be classified under the Head covering the goods they contained. C. A. No.347 of 2001 fol.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Plastic pouches containing oil/ghee‑‑‑Scope of tax‑‑‑Oil/ghee in plastic pouches is obtained as a result of continuous process of manufacturing‑‑‑Such pouches are neither distinctly or separately manu factured nor capable of being sealed, weighed or stored separately‑‑Such pouches once having been filled with oil/ghee become part of product and lose their independent identity on the use of product‑‑‑Such pouches, after use of oil/ghee marketed in them, are simply a refuse and there is no chance of their repetitive use‑‑‑Such pouches, thus, were liable to be classified under the Head covering the goods they contained. C. A. No.347 of 2001 fol. Malik Naveed Sohail for Appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends and we will agree that the issue in hand already stands resolved by this Court in favour of tax payer.
2. In Customs Appeal No.347 of 2001 decided on 21‑1‑2002 this Court while considering the impugned order recorded by the Tribunal on a number of identical petitions concluded that the pouches containing oil/ ghee after use of the ghee marketed in them were simply a refuse and that there was no chance of their repetitive use. It was accordingly concluded that once having been filled with oil/ghee the pouches became part of the product and lost their independent distinction on the use of the product. The relevant part of the order reads as under:‑‑ "Therefore, in view of the aforesaid rule of interpretation, these pouches were liable to be classified under the head covering the goods they contained. It is also not denied by the Revenue that these pouches were not distinctly and separately manufactured as such. They were never found to be capable of being sealed, weighed or stored separately nor it was actually done by any of the appellants. Accordingly the contention that "vegetable ghee in plastic pouches" obtained as a result of continuous process of manufacturing appears to be factual as well as legally correct. These containers as such once having been fed to automatic machines were admittedly never taken off to be called a manufactured product or a product different from the one which it contained. "
3. Accordingly in view of the various reasons stated in the said order this appeal is also allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 14‑7‑2001 confirming the imposition of levy by Collector (Adjudication) Multan is set aside. S.A.K./M‑2089/L Appeal allowed.