2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Excises and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, Chairman and Falak Sher, Member (Technical) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Central Excises Act (I of 1944) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excises Act (I of 1944) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Excises and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, Chairman and Falak Sher, Member (Technical).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Mehmood Sheikh for Appellant.
- Ms. Rukhsana Yasmin, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
Imposition of penalty for failure to remove produced sugar from assessee's own godown a few days after the expiry period specified by the Collector, despite the fact that excise duty had been paid within the specified time
Assessee could be penalized only if there had been any wilful evasion of duty on its part but there was no such allegation against it, nor there was anything on record to that effect
Appeal was accepted and order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. PLD 1991 SC 963 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 11th October, 2000. ABDUL MAJID TIWANA (CHAIRMAN).
Heard Being the first appeal, it is admitted to regular hearing. Notice of the appeal has been given to the learned Departmental Representative, who is incidentally, present before the Tribunal in other cases.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant for the admission of the appeal and the issuance of the stay order, we are of the view that it is a short matter which can easily be decided immediately.
3. The appellant has been penalized by the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Faisalabad by imposing on it a penalty of Rs.1,50,000 for its failure to remove the Sugar produced by it from its own godown a few days after the expiry period specified therefore, by the Collector, Excise. despite the. fact that it had paid the excise duty within the specified time.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, with reference to the copy of the challan at page 16 of the appeal, file, submits that it had deposited Rs.100,000 in the Government Treasury on 14-11-1999, the last date for the deposit of the balance amount of central excise duty to clear the entire tax liabilities, and the learned Collector has erroneously made an observation in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order that balance amount of Rs.70,320 was deposited subsequent to the admissible extended period.
5. With reference to PLD 1991 SC 963, the learned counsel contends that the appellant could be penalized only if there had been any wilful evasion of duty on its part but there is no such allegation against it, nor there is anything on the record to that effect.
6. The learned Departmental Representative is not inclined to support the impugned order.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order, dated 24-7-2000 is set aside. C.M.A./663/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted