2000 PLP 29 (CLC)

4. It appears that a copy of the order passed by this Court in the above petition was not made available to the respondents. The Chief (Survey and Rebate), Central Board of Revenue. Government of Pakistan decided the matter on 9‑1‑1999 and held that the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of concession under SRO‑499(I)/95, dated 14‑6‑1995 was found inadmissible and was rejected. On 14‑1‑1999. the petitioner approached the Chief (Survey and Rebate) by filing an application in which it was stated that the aforesaid order had been issued without considering the findings given by this Court to the judgment; dated 11‑12‑1998 and as such the order may be withdrawn and a final Certificate be issued keeping in view the findings of this Court. This was followed by another application on 29‑1‑1999. It appears, however, that these two applications remained unanswered and no action was taken on them. Hence this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.2 in ignorance of the findings of this Court while remanding the case in Writ Petition No.23128 of 1998, as order was not before .the respondents, according to the impugned order itself. It was further urged that the petitioner alongwith a copy of the order of this Court had applied to the respondents for reconsideration of the matter and decision afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court but the respondents failed to do so.

6. It was maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the refusal to issue final Certificate was arbitrary and was based upon misreading of notification in question. It was submitted that this Court had remanded the case only for determination of the question as to the quantities in respect of which final Certificate was to be issued and the respondents could not, therefore, totally reject the petitioner's application. The learned counsel went on to submit that the respondents have, in any case, misinterpreted various notifications in holding that ‑ the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of benefits mentioned in SRO‑499(1)/95, dated 14‑6‑1995 on the mistaken assumption that since Alloy Steel Ingots was not specifically mentioned in the Notification bearing No.SRO‑499(1)/95, no Certificate could be issued to the petitioner. 7: Mr. A. Karim Malik, learned counsel for the respondents has also been heard.

8. From the order passed by the respondent No.2, it is quite evident that he was not aware of the contents of the judgment delivered by this Court on 11‑12‑1998. Even if respondent No.2 considered that he was bound to decide the case within one month as directed by this Court and, therefore, he could not .wait for the written judgment, wizen the petitioner approached the said respondent alongwith a copy of the judgment of this Court, he should have re examined the matter in the light of the observations made in the order of remand but unfortunately he failed to do so.

9. This Court had remanded the matter to the respondents for determination of the quantities in respect of which the Final Certificate was to be issued by the respondents by observing that the report submitted by the Survey Team comprising of the Officers of the respondents should be taken into consideration. The respondents on the other hand, proceeded to hold that the petitioner's case was not covered by the Notification in question and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the notification itself. This aspect of the matter was examined by this Court in the earlier petition and it was observed:‑‑ "In reply, the learned counsel for the, respondents who was accompanied by Shahzada Tahir Zaman, Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, has submitted that the petitioner's unit does not fulfill the conditions laid down in the notification. I am afraid, the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to their own record. If the petitioner was not entitled to grant of any certificate, the question of issuance of final Certificate for a limited quantity would not have arisen. It is for the first time. that the respondents have taken this plea before this Court which they cannot do."

10. In the face of these findings, it was not open for the respondents to hold that the petitioner's case is not covered by the notification bearing No.SRO 499(1)/95. Even otherwise, it may be stated that the respondents themselves had issued firstly provisional certificate and then final certificate for a lesser quantity acting on the basis of the notification in question in favour of the petitioner and the volte face taken by the respondents cannot be accepted.

11. Be that as It tray, the impugned order clearly proceeds on misreading and misinterpretation of Notification No.SRO‑499(1)/95. As is evident front the notification itself it exempted raw material, sub‑components, and components imported for the use in the manufacture of goods specified in the table below A meant primarily for export or supply to the industrial Units, Projects, Agencies entitled to import them at concessionary rates from whole of customs duty and sales tax, subject to certain conditions. From the bare reading of the notification, it becomes evident that it is not necessary that the goods imported by the petitioner should have been specified in the table. On the other hand, the requirement in this behalf was that the raw material sub‑components and components should be such which are imported for the use in the manufacture of goods mentioned in the table below. Consequently, any raw material for the manufacture of goods specified in the Schedule would be exempted from payment of customs duty and sales tax, if those goods were being used in the manufacture of goods specified in the table. As the table in turn mentions those items in the Notification bearing No.SRO‑501(1)/94, dated 9‑6‑1994, the same shall also be exempted. Both these notifications had, thus, to be read together and the petitioner's case ‑ should have been examined in the light of two notifications as to whether the goods being manufactured by the petitioner could be used in the manufacture of machinery and agricultural equipments specified in the table, to the two notifications. It may be reiterated that the Department itself constituted a Survey Team comprising' four Officers, which had submitted a report, according to which, the petitioner was entitled to the quantities of raw material detailed in Annexure "A" to the Survey Report. Earlier while issuing final certificate, these quantities were reduced drastically without assigning any reason and surprisingly in the impugned order the position taken by the respondents is that the petitioner is not at all entitled to the benefit of Notification No.SRO‑499(1)/95 read with Notification No.SRO‑501(1)/94. It follows from the above, that the impugned order is not sustainable as it goes against the order of remand which has become final and is based upon misreading of the relevant notifications. . As a result, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and respondent No.2 is directed to issue Final Certificate after determining quantities of the goods to which the petitioner is entitled on the basis of material on the record including the Survey Report. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from today and compliance thereof shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court. In the meantime, the respondents shall act in accordance with the Provisional Certificate. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑172/L Petition allowed