SCMR 2007

2007 PLP 1907 (SCMR)

COLLECTOR- (APPEALS), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.318-K of 2002, decided on 15th October, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1907 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ
Parties COLLECTOR- (APPEALS), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1907 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1907 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1907 (SCMR) (COLLECTOR- (APPEALS), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • ----Art. 185(3)---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.12-B, Sched., Item No.04.03---Exemption of excise duty---Respondent had been dealing in the business of packing, repacking and selling completely manufactured synthetic organic Dye Stuff commonly known as `Food Colours' which was edible and used for food preparation---Clearance of food colours was being permitted without payment of excise duty since 1974---Respondent was asked for the first time in the year 1989 to file relevant return and pay excise duty and arrears for the last three years---Appeal and revision filed by respondent against said demand .having been dismissed, respondent filed application for exemption under S.12-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 which also was dismissed---Constitutional ,petition filed by respondent, however, was allowed by High Court and impugned order was set aside with direction to refund recovered amount to respondent---Fate of the case hinged on the language of item No.04.03 of Schedule to Central Excise Act, 1944 which appeared in Section IV headed "Products of Chemical and Allied Industries" and had indicated that it covered all sorts of paints, distempers, dyes, colour enamels and varnishes etc.---Counsel for petitioners had attempted to show that subject goods fell within the expression "Colours"---Such arguments were naive---Expression "Colours" had to be interpreted keeping in view the heading of item No.04.03---Edible colour, was altogether, different species and had no connection whatsoever with paints, pigments, varnishes and polishes---No fault whatsoever could be found in the impugned judgment of the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal, was dismissed.
  • Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Petitioners.
  • Memnoon Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Nasir Hussain Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
  • Date of hearing: 15th October, 2003.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 28-12-2001 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, passed in Constitutional Petition No.D-22 of 2000).

Judgment & Decree

KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.

Respondent No.1/its predecessor Messrs Far Eastern Impex, a partnership concern has been dealing in the business of packing, re-packing and selling completely manufactured synthetic organic Dye Stuff commonly known as `Food Colours'. "Food colours" are edible and are used for food preparation. Since 1974, clearance of food colours was being permitted without payment of excise duty. For the first time in the year 1989 respondent No.1 was asked to file the relevant return and pay excise duty. The arrears amounting to Rs.12,65,173.39 were also demanded for the period between 15-4-1985 to 15-6-1988. By another letter, a demand in the sum of Rs.6,15,898.43 was made for the period from July; 1988 to June, 1989. The respondent No.1 challenged the demand in the hierarchy by way of appeal and revisions without any success. Application of respondent No.1 for exemption under section 12(b), of the Central Excise & Sales Act, 1944 was also rejected and the demand for payment of the arrears was reiterated. This led respondent No.1 to challenge the action/demand in the High Court of Sindh and Karachi by filing Constitutional petition (C.P. No.D-22 of 2000). This petition was allowed vide judgment date 28-12-2001 by a learned Division Bench of the Court. After setting aside the order, the Court directed refund of the recovered amounts. The petitioners solicit leave to appeal from the afore-said judgment.

2. The fate of the case hinges on the language of Item No. 04.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Sales Act, 1944. This Item appears in section IV headed "PRODUCTS OF CHEMICAL AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES" The item is reproduced:-- 1 2 3 "04.03" Paints, Pigments, Varnishes and Polishes-- All sorts of paints (including products known as or used or cement paints), pigments, distempers, colours, dyes, enamels, varnishes, glazes lusters, thinners blacks, cellulose lacquers and polishes (except creams and polishes falling under Item No.04.01) and their ancillaries, in any form, liquid, solid, semi-solid, paste, powder of granules-- (i) if retail price and quantity are legibly, prominently and indelibly, printed on each container or package; 22 per cent of the retail price (ii) If not covered by clause (i) 200 per cent. ad valorem

3. A bare reading indicates that the Item covers all sorts of paints, distempers, dyes, colours, enamels and .varnishes etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to show that the subject goods fall within the expression "colours". The argument is naive, to say the least. The expression "colours" has to be interpreted keeping in view the heading of Item No.04.03 namely "paints, pigments, varnishes and polishes". The edible colour is altogether a different species and has no connection whatsoever with paints, pigments, varnished and polishes.

4. No fault whatsoever can be found in the impugned judgment of the High Court. We hold this petition as frivolous and while refusing leave to appeal, dismiss the same. H.B.T./C-23/SC Petition dismissed