GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI
2003 P T D 1444
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others
Versus
SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 62-K of 2000, decided on /01/.
th
July, 2000. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of High Court of Sindh passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995).
Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---
----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.
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.
ORDER
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/-SCLeave granted.