1989 PLP 1566 (MLD)
UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD‑‑ — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR APPEAL, CENTRL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, LAHORE‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1566 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Central Board of Revenue Sind |
| Bench Members | Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Additional Secretary Government of Pakistan |
| Parties | UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD‑‑ — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR APPEAL, CENTRL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, LAHORE‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1566 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1566 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Central Board of Revenue Sind bench comprising: Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Additional Secretary Government of Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1566 (MLD) (UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD‑‑ — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR APPEAL, CENTRL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, LAHORE‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Najib Ahmad Choudhry for Petitioner.
- Syed Yousaf Ali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 2(CCC)‑‑Central Excises Rules, 1944, R.10‑‑Duty, demand for‑‑Duty includes regulatory duty and any other sum payable under any of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Rules made thereunder‑‑Where duty payable was time, barred, penalty in respect of the acts relating thereto, could not be imposed as definition of duty also included penalty‑‑Time bar under provisions of R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would thus be applicable to penalty as well.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 2(CCC)‑‑Central Excises Rules, 1944, R.10‑‑Duty, demand for‑‑Duty includes regulatory duty and any other sum payable under any of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Rules made thereunder‑‑Where duty payable was time, barred, penalty in respect of the acts relating thereto, could not be imposed as definition of duty also included penalty‑‑Time bar under provisions of R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would thus be applicable to penalty as well. Najib Ahmad Choudhry for Petitioner. Syed Yousaf Ali for Respondent. This revision application filed by M/s. United Industries, Limited, Faisalabad (hereinafter called the applicants) is directed against Order‑in‑Appeal No.73 Excise/1988 dated 7th May, 1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals) Northern Zone, Lahore.
2. Mr. Najib Ahmed Choudhry, Advocate, appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicants on 8th February, 1989 at Lahore. He stated that the demand for duty involved in this case was time-barred. The Deputy Collector in view of the time bar had vacated the demand show‑cause notice but imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty involved. The point of the learned counsel is that according to the definition of duty given in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the duty includes regulatory duty and any other sums payable under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. He contended that since the penalty was the sum charged under the provision of the Act, it was included in the definition of duty. The time bar under rule 10 was therefore, applicable to penalty as well. As such the demand of penalty was also attracted by the mischief of the limitation stipulated under rule 10 and was thus time‑barred. In this connection he referred 1987 PTD 386.
3. The plea of the learned Advocate is correct. Accordingly the revision application is allowed. Revision allowed.