2006 PLP 74 (PTD)
Messrs KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLY CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE EAST, KARACHI
| Citation | 2006 PLP 74 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLY CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE EAST, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Central Excise Act (I of 1944) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 74 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excise Act (I of 1944) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 74 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 74 (PTD) (Messrs KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLY CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE EAST, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Mohsin Imam for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 36-C
Reply submitted by appellant before. Additional Collector (Adjudication) in response to show-cause notice issued to him, had shown that request was made by appellant for summary adjudication
No explanation was furnished to detailed show-cause notice and it was stated that appellants were very sorry as they were doing business for the first time and mistakes 'were committed due to lack of proper knowledge and that they would not repeat the mistake
Tribunal, in circumstances, dismissed appeal with observation that appeal filed before Tribunal was an exercise in futility, just to gain time and to wriggle out from admission made before adjudicating officer
Proposed questions did not arise out of order of Tribunal and observations made by Tribunal were not open to any exception. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Through this appeal under section 36C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant has proposed the following questions of law: "(1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in coming to conclusion that the acceptance of mistake by the appellant during the course of proceedings before the Additional Collector of Adjudication amounts to admission of wilful evasion of Central Excise Duty? (2) Whether the condition precedent for any penal action against appellant including the imposing of penalty is the wilful evasion of Central Excise Duty? (3) Whether the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case on record has made any wilful evasion of Central Excise Duty? (4) Whether the department has discharged the burden of proof under the law for the conclusion that the appellant has committed wilful evasion of Central Excise Duty? Heard Mr. S. Mohsin Imam, learned counsel for the appellant, perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the show-cause notice and reply thereof submitted by the appellant. A perusal of the reply, dated December, 1, 2000 submitted by the appellant before the Additional Collector (Adjudication) shows that a request was made for summary adjudication. No explanation was furnished to the detailed show-cause notice and it was stated that the appellants were very sorry as they were doing the- business for the first time and the mistakes were committed due to lack of proper knowledge. It was further stated that they will not repeat the mistake. In view of these circumstances, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the observation that the appeal filed before the Tribunal was an exercise in futility, just to gain the time and to wriggle out from the admissions made before the adjudicating officer. The proposed questions do not arise out of the order of Tribunal and the observations made by the Tribunal are not open to any exception. The appeal is without substance, which stands dismissed in limine along with the listed application. H.B.T./K-64/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.