2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar‑ul‑Majeed, Member (Technical) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar‑ul‑Majeed, Member (Technical).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Imran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 194‑A, 17 & 156(1)(8)‑‑‑Appeal to Appellate Tribunal‑‑ Jurisdiction ‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Confiscation of goods‑‑‑Appeal dismissed by the Full Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of admitted smuggled character of the confiscated vehicle and request' for its release on payment of duty and taxes could not be dealt with by the Division Bench of the Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 24th January, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).‑Heard Record examined.
2. The appeal was to come up for hearing on 24‑1‑2002, but since the record of the appeal was summoned by the Hon'ble Chairman and it has been received back only today, therefore, the appeal could not be shown in the cause list for 24‑1‑2002 and has been taken up today on receipt record.
3. The Full Bench has passed the allowed judgment.
4. The learned D.R. with reference to observations of the Chairman, in para 4 at page 24 of the Full Bench judgment, dated 22‑1‑2002 has pointed out that since the appellant has impliedly admitted smuggled character of the confiscated vehicle, and has requested for its release on payment of duty and taxes, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed by the Full Bench vide order, dated 22‑1‑2002 and that this being the position, this Bench has no jurisdiction to deal with this appeal. We have gone through the relevant portion referred to by the learned D.R. which reads as under:‑‑ "This majority view dismisses the amended appeal against the impugned Order-in‑Original, dated 27‑1‑2002, alongwith those appeals pending before Lahore Bench and Lahore Bench‑II in which the Adjudicating Officers have confiscated the goods without giving the owner an option to redeem the same on the payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, on their express or implied admission about the smuggled nature of such goods.
5. The learned D. R. has rightly pointed out that legal position. The appeal having already been dismissed by the Full Bench cannot be dealt with by this Bench. C.M.A./708/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.