1979 PLP 349 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1979. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑--The petitioner's firm M/s. Manzoor sons, Karachi, received an order from Italy for the supply of 3,01,000 cotton bags made of gray cloth of the following specifications; (1) 16s/16s, 48 x 52. (2) 21 s/21 s, 60 x

60. The petitioner made an application for the grant of rebate of duty paid on cotton yarn and fabrication used for the manufacture of the aforesaid bags. The Central Board of Revenue granted the rebate as prayed. The petitioner exported the bags and obtained a rebate amounting to Rs. 80,759.16. It was subsequently found that instead of the specified cloth mentioned above, the cloth used by the petitioner in the manufacture of bags was 14s/14s, 40 x

40. Therefore the petitioner was required to refund the amount of Rs. 80,759.16. Aggrieved by this demand he filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise and Land Custom, Karachi, which was dismissed on the 27th of June 1973. He then filed a revision before the Federal Government which too was dismissed on the 17th of August 1974. The petitioner the filed a writ petition before the High Court which also was not successful. Hence the present petition. The main point stresses by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that the bags exported by him were checked by the relevant authorities during the manufacturing as well as at the packing and shipment stages and certificates were granted to confirm that the goods mentioned therein were in accordance with the specification mentioned in the notification whereby rebate had been granted to the petitioner. It appears however, that subsequently the Excise and Custom Authorities made an inquiry from Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills Limited. Karachi, from whom the petitioner's company bad made purchases of cloth for the purpose of manufacturing the aforesaid bags and were informed that the cloth supplied by the said mills was known as No. 4440‑A and its specifi cations were 14s/14s, 40 x

40. It was on obtaining this information that the respondent authorities had demanded the refund of the rebate allowed to the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that probably it was the Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills that had wrongly described the specification of the cloth supplied by them to the petitioner in order to save duty and that in fact the cloth supplied by the said mill was of specification 16s/16s, 48 x 52 and not 14s/14s, 40 x

40. The learned counsel stressed that greater reliance should have been placed by the concerned authorities on the certificates issued by their own staff on checking the petitioner's bag at different stages. He could not, however, show a copy of the order for the cloth placed by the petitioner on Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills, to enable us to verify the specifications of the cloth that he had actually ordered for that mill. In any case the contention raised by him involves determination of a question of fact, i.e. as to whether or not the specification of the cloth obtained by the petitioner from the aforementioned mill and used in the g manufacturing of the bags exported by him was the same which he had bee allowed the rebate. Such a question of fact cannot be gone into and decide at this stage. We do not therefore consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.