ADIL BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS
2001 P T D 1439
[Lahore High Court]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
ADIL BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, Managing Director
versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and 2 others
Writ Petition No.5610 of 1988, heard on 15/02/2001.
Central Excise Rules, 1944‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr.53 & 53‑B [before substitution of R.53‑B in the Rules]‑‑‑Manufacture of soft drink by a beverage company‑‑‑Crown cork of a soft drink‑‑‑Not a "raw material"‑‑‑Manufacturer , was required to maintain record of "raw material" and not packing material‑‑‑Crown cork being not used in the manufacturing in aerated water but was only required at the time of packing of bottles, manufacturer could not have been asked, prior to the substitution of R. 53‑B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to have kept record of the crown corks.
Messrs Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1976 Lah. 1584 distinguished.
Zaheer Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
Shahid Waheed for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 2001.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by Adil Beverage Company (Pvt.) Limited which is manufacturer of foreign brands, soft drinks. The Central Board of Revenue by virtue of Notification bearing No. 338(K)/66, dated 7‑4‑1966 in purported exercise of its powers under rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 specified that all manufacturers shall maintain daily stock account of the raw material. Underneath the notification, one of the notes given require, a separate record to be maintained of bottles, 'crown corks and other raw material.
2. The case of the petitioner is that since the crown corks is not raw material for production of irriated water but is a packing material, the Central Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to require the petitioner to maintain a register relating to crown cork.
3. Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has re iterated that crown cork is a part of packing material and not raw material and as such the petitioner was under no obligation to keep the record of consumption of crown cork prior to 3‑7‑1985 when rule 53‑B Was added under which every. manufacturer was required to maintain daily stock account of raw material also.
4. Sh. Shahid Waheed, the respondents learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as M/s. Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1976 Lah. 1584) to contend that crown cork is part of raw material.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments addressed at the Bar, I am of the view that this petition is bound to succeed. A bare reading of rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 shows that the manufacturer was required to maintain record of raw material and not of packing material. The contention on behalf of the respondents that crown cork is raw material is fallacious inasmuch as raw material is something out of which another product is produced after its user. It cannot be denied that crown cork is not used in the manufacturing of aerated water but is only required at the time of packing of bottles. This being so, the petitioner could not have been asked, prior to the amendment in rule 53‑B to have kept record of crown cork which was erroneously, treated as raw material. As regards the reliance of the learned counsel on Shahi Bottlers' case‑ (supra), a perusal of para. 10 of the judgment, would show that it is based on consent of the parties and not on any discussion on the subject.
In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs.
M.B.A./A‑185/L Petition allowed