1991 PLP 450 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 450 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rehman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 450 (SCMR)?
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 1991 PLP 450 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rehman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 450 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.P, No. 259 of 1989).
- Nemo for Respondents (in other petitions),
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1990.
- Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P, No. 259 of 1989).
- 3. It is contended by the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners that the fixation of the capacity is relatable to a particular type of manufacture with a view to encourage production over and above the capacity for which the manufacturer is not liable to tax. When within the capacity or in excess of it the manufacturer manufactures commoditures in respect of which capacity has not been fixed, he has to be charged separately for such manufactures. It is not possible to determine whether such manufacture has taken place within the limits of the capacity fixed at the cost of the capacity or after achieving the capacity. That would be a matter not determinable in the ordinary course where a factory is running on capacity. In the absence of it, the law does not envisage abatement in capacity duty simply because another more rewarding manufacture has been undertaken.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3-12-1988 passed in Writ Petitions No. 2635/75, 1720/77, 2554/78 and 2066 of 1986)
S.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Abatement in the capacity duty
Entitlement to
Question raised on behalf of petitioners was that fixation of capacity was relatable to a particular type of manufacture with a view to encourage production over and above the capacity for which the manufacturer was not liable to tax
When however, within the capacity or in excess of it, manufacturer manufactured commodities in respect of which capacity had not been fixed he had to be charged separately for such manufactures
To determine, whether such manufacture had taken place within the limits of capacity fixed at the cost of capacity or after achieving the capacity, would not be possible
That would be a matter not determinable in the ordinary course where a factory was running on capacity
In absence of it, law does not envisage abatement m capacity duly simply because another more rewarding manufacture had been undertaken
Points raised by petitioners required fuller examination and authoritative pronouncement, for which leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑In the four Petitions the Government of Pakistan and its functionaries, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑12‑1988. whereby the abatement in the capacity duty was held admissible in law, to the respondents.
2. The respondents had been placed on capacity so far as the production of cotton yarn and cotton fabrics were concerned. While on such capacity they also manufactured man made (synthetic) yarn and man made (synthetic) fabrics, on which duty was charged independent of the capacity. The respondents claimed abatement of the capacity to the extent duty was paid on man made yarn and fabrics. The High Court after examining the various provisions of law applicable, held as hereunder:‑ "Thus, where man made (synthetic) yarn and fabrics are manufactured on the same spindles and looms utilized by a company for the production of its cotton yarn and fabrics, on which it has paid the excise duty on the basis of production capacity, the excise duty under section 3(1) of the Act cannot be charged, without granting abatement of duty on that part of the plant and machinery on which such yarn or fabrics have been produced and duties have been levied under section 3(4)."
3. It is contended by the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners that the fixation of the capacity is relatable to a particular type of manufacture with a view to encourage production over and above the capacity for which the manufacturer is not liable to tax. When within the capacity or in excess of it the manufacturer manufactures commoditures in respect of which capacity has not been fixed, he has to be charged separately for such manufactures. It is not possible to determine whether such manufacture has taken place within the limits of the capacity fixed at the cost of the capacity or after achieving the capacity. That would be a matter not determinable in the ordinary course where a factory is running on capacity. In the absence of it, the law does not envisage abatement in capacity duty simply because another more rewarding manufacture has been undertaken.
4. Points raised require fuller examination and an authoritative pronouncement for which leave to appeal is granted. A.A./G‑287/S Leave granted.