2003 PLP 1444 (PTD)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others Versus SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1444 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others Versus SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Central Excises Act (I of 1944) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1444 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excises Act (I of 1944) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1444 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1444 (PTD) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others Versus SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Siddique Mirza, Advocate .Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of High Court of Sindh passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995).
First Sched., Entry No. 4-3
Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 9, 52, 236 & 238
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether as per Entry No.4-3 of First Schedule to Central Excises Act, 1944-, glazes, lusterers, lacquers and polishes and their ancillaries in any form fell within the ambit of the entry and such were chargeable to excise duty and whether leucophor being of the category also fell within the scope of the entry, whether the authorities contravened Rr. 7, 9, 52, 236 and 238 of Central Excise Rules, 1944; and whether Leucophor' and 'Tenophal CBS-X were comparable commodities and were to be treated alike.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.
Respondent-Sandoz (Pakistan) Limited is manufacturer of product called `Leucophor'. It is alleged that the goods produced under above name were being cleared by the Excise Department without any demand of excise duty and, after lapse of many years, Central Excise Department classified said product under Entry No.4-3 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Excise Department set up a claim for excise dirty payable thereon. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following:
(i) As per Entry No.4-3 glazes, lusterers, lacquers and polishes and their ancillaries in any form fall within the ambit of said entry and such are chargeable to excise duty and whether leucophor being of this category also falls within the scope of said entry. (ii) Whether the respondent contravened rules 7, 9, 52, 236 and 238 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) Whether `Leucophor' and `Tenophal CBS-X' are comparable commodities and are to be treated alike. M.H./G-132/-SC Leave granted.