2002 PLP 3480 (YLR)
Messrs GENESIS SECURITY (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3480 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs GENESIS SECURITY (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Central Excises Act (I of 1944)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3480 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excises Act (I of 1944)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3480 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3480 (YLR) (Messrs GENESIS SECURITY (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaeemul Farooq Malik for Appellant.
- Izharul Haq Sheikh for Respondent/Revenue.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 35‑C‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Excise duty on finance lease transaction‑‑‑Imposing of additional tax acid penalty‑‑‑Order in original conveyed after seven months‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Conveying of the order after the lapse of seven months was not approved by High Court as the same was to burden the assessee even for that period‑‑ Penalty, as well as additional duty was cancelled by High Court it circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 35‑C‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Excise duty on finance lease transaction‑‑‑Imposing of additional tax acid penalty‑‑‑Order in original conveyed after seven months‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Conveying of the order after the lapse of seven months was not approved by High Court as the same was to burden the assessee even for that period‑‑ Penalty, as well as additional duty was cancelled by High Court it circumstances. Zaeemul Farooq Malik for Appellant. Izharul Haq Sheikh for Respondent/Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examining legal preposition involved in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Sindh High Court in C.P.No.1405 of 1998 decided on 23‑11‑2001 we will agreed that the imposition of penalty, and additional tax in the present case was not justified.
2. The appellant had assailed the levy of central excise duty on finance lease transaction. It was allowed interim relief in the form of stay of recovery. However, on rejection of the petition the liability towards excise duty was duly discharged.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the show‑cause notice in this case was issued on 8‑3‑1990 and the case was adjudicated on 19‑4‑1999. However, the order in original was conveyed to the appellant after a lapse of seven months on 27‑11‑1999. To burden the assessee even for that period, otherwise, does not appear justified.
4. Therefore, we will allow this appeal and direct cancellation of penalty as well as additional duty. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑171.L Appeal allowed.