2005 PLP 1361 (PTD)
Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 3 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1361 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1361 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1361 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1361 (PTD) (Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner.
- A. Karim Malik for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
In this Constitutional petition following prayer has been made. "In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that interpretation given by the Respondents in section 4(2) of Central Excises Act, 1944 may kindly be declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. It is further prayed that the letters, dated 4-8-1998 and 8-9-1998 issued by the respondent No.4 may also kindly be declared illegal and without legal authority. It is further prayed that Central Excise General Order No.14/6 may also kindly be declared illegal and without lawful authority."
2. The issue if excise duty is to be treated as part of "retail price" for the purpose of levy of excise duty payable under the Central Excises Act, 1944 has been considered by us in our judgment, dated 8-2-2005 passed in C.A. No.61 of 1998 etc. re: Collector of Customs v. Messrs Shezan International Limited etc. On consideration of identical facts involved in those departmental appeals we refused to interfere and upheld the interpretation of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that the taxes referred to in subsection (2) of section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 meant the taxes other than the excise duty which was imposable independently under the charging provisions of the Act. While rejecting the departmental appeals we also made reference to a judgment of this Court, dated 12-4-2000 passed in C.A. No.41 of 1998, which was subsequently maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment, dated 20-12-2000 passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 1527-L to 1530-L and 1576-L to 1579-L of 2000. Also we benefited from the judgment of the Sindh High Court passed in Constitutional Petition No.D-1926 of 2002, dated 14-1-2005 re. Pakistan Beverage Limited v. Federation of Pakistan etc. and Peshawar High Court passed in W.P. No.1144 of 1997, dated 25-5-2001 re. Messrs Luckey Cement Limited v. C.B.R. and others.
3. For the various reasons detailed in that judgment we will allow this Constitutional petition and hold that excise duty cannot be treated as part of "retail price" for the purpose of calculation of duty of excise payable under the Central Excises Act, 1944.
4. Petition allowed in the above terms. M.B.A./R-112/L Order accordingly.