(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S.2(4)---Central Board of Revenue---Powers and limitation of---Legal force of S.R.Os.---S.R.Os. were statutory rules and had its legal force, which could not be replaced through instructions or interpretation of Central Board of Revenue---Central Board of Revenue could not change the rulings unless conditions of S.R.O. were also changed in accordance with law---Question of prospective or retrospective application of S.R.O. was relevant while interpreting a law only and not the opinion of Central Board of Revenue which was merely a view held by an executive Authority having no force of law---Central Board of Revenue though was empowered to issue S.R.Os./Notifications in exercise of delegated authority under statute by way of Subordinate Legislation and so long it was not inconsistent with provisions of statute, would have the force of law, but Board had no authority to give interpretation of law as it fell exclusively within the domain of judicial functions---Board though occupied apex position in hierarchy of tax administration, but under the Scheme of law pertaining to direct and indirect taxation, it had no authority to give any judicial interpretation except in cases, where Board was empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction---Barring said exception, Board was executive Authority primarily concerned with implementation of statutory provisions pertaining to direct and indirect federal taxes and in execution thereof was empowered under various statutes to issue S.R.Os./Notifications and frame rules in exercise of delegated authority by way of subordinate Legislation---Any view/opinion contained in any Circular or Letter issued by Board, was in the nature of an executive interpretation/opinion and could not be treated at par with judicial interpretation and it could not be held to be a rule as was understood in the common parlance of law.

Central Insurance Company and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.

(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----S.13---Exemption---Electric accumulators (storage batteries) were not included in classification of parts and accessories or components of Motor Vehicles---Same would not be so included whether exemption was granted to parts and accessories/components of motor vehicles specifi cally under PCT heading 87.08 or with the use of expression "respective headings", the reason being that expression `respective headings' connoted reference to PCT headings and classification of the goods under respective classification, which had to be determined in the light of principles and guidelines contained in Harmonized Commodity Des cription and Coding System Explanatory Notes.  

(c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

---S.13---Tax was to be levied/charged under clear language which admitted of no ambiguity and ambiguity if any was to be resolved in favour of citizens/tax-payers and not in favour of Revenue/Government--No presumption and inferences were available in respect of a tax and if anything was not covered within the clear, plain and unambiguous language of law, then there could be no presumption to tax---So far principle relating to exemption was concerned it was not the same---Once it was established that tax was chargeable then for the purpose of availing exemption, a person claiming same had to establish that claim was squarely covered under exemption granted and law pertaining to exemption was to be strictly interpreted and could not be allowed on the basis of mere inferences or any presumption---Effect of exemption, was that the payment of tax was allowed to escape which was otherwise chargeable---Law relating to exemption was not to be interpreted liberally in favour of taxpayers and had to be interpreted strictly---If any claim to exemption was not fully covered under law pertaining to exemption, it was not to be allowed.

Shakeel Ahmed for Appellant.

Qadirdad Khan for Respondent No.1 (in Spl. S.T.As. Nos. 68 and 69 of 2001).

Fazale Ghani Khan along with Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Respondent No.2 (in Spl. S.T.A. Nos.68 and 69 of 2001).

Fazale Ghani Khan along with Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Appellant (in Spl. S. T. A. No. 164 of 2001).

Qadirdad Khan for Respondent No. 1 (in Spl. S.T.A. No. 164 of 2001).

Shakeel Ahmad for Respondent No.2 (in Spl. S.T.A. No. 164 of 2001).

Date of hearing: 5th November, 2002.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---All the above three Appeals are directed against consolidated judgment, dated 24-1-2001 passed by learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). The common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, all the appeals have teen heard together and are disposed of by this single consolidated judgment.

The first two appeals have been preferred by the Collectorate of Sales Tax, Central Excise, Karachi and have been admitted to consider the following questions of law:

(1) Whether the Electric accumulator i.e. storage batteries are the component parts of the motor vehicle in spite of clarification by Board and explanation in the explanatory note to section XVII in the Harmonized Commodity Description and coding systems Explanatory Notes?

(2) Whether the goods falling under P.C.T. Heading 85.07 be treated as a component parts of the goods fallings under P.C.T. heading 87?

The appellant in Appeal No.164 of 2001, is aggrieved with the later part of the findings of the Tribunal that the C.B.R. ruling in its letter, dated .31-1-1990 is applicable to parts and accessories of all automotive vehicles but this ruling shall benefit the appellants during the period, wherein the exemption is open i.e. is not restricted to the parts and accessories falling under the specific tariff Heading of 87.08 of P.C.T.

However, the moot point for consideration in all the three appeals is whether electric accumulators (storage batteries) falling under P. C. T. Heading 85.07 can be treated as component part of motor vehicle falling under P.C.T. Heading 87.08.

The relevant facts are that Messrs Excide Pakistan Limited and Messrs Atlas Battery Limited are the manufacturers of electric accumulators (storage batteries). They supplied the electric accumulators (storage batteries) to the assemblers of motor vehicle. Both of them did not pay sales tax on the manufacture and supply of electric accumulators (storage batteries). The Department issued show-cause notice and both the appellants took plea that under various S.R.Os. exemption was available to parts and accessories of automotive vehicles, and electric accumulators (storage batteries) were parts and accessories of automotive vehicles, therefore, the electric accumulators (storage batteries) also enjoy exemption.

Various notifications .on which reliance was placed are as follows:--

From the above chart, it is evident that in some of the notifications, exemption was specifically restricted to the parts and accessories of automotive vehicles falling under P.C.T. Heading 87.08 and some notifications were open, meaning thereby, that P.C.T. heading was not specified but merely description was given to the effect that exemption was granted to the parts and accessories of automotive vehicles.

The contention of the department was that electric accumulators (storage batteries) fall under P.C.T. Heading 85.07 and, therefore, the notification granting exemption to parts and accessories, specifically falling under; P.C.T., Heading 87.08 could not be extended to the electric accumulators (storage batteries) and likewise notifications granting exemption to parts and accessories of automotive vehicles without specifying the P.C.T. heading but mentioning "respective headings" also grant exemption to the goods falling under P.C.T. Heading 87.08 and the exemption could not be extended to the electric accumulators (storage batteries) falling under PCT Heading 85.07.

The manufacturers in support of their contention that batteries constitute part and' accessories of automotive vehicles placed reliance on C.B.R. letter, dated 31st January, 1990, which reads as follows:--

"GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE

C. No. 16(3)/ST/8:Islamabad the 31st Jan, 1990.

From:Mr. Muhammad Saeed

Secretary (Sales Tax)

Tele 822848

To:The Collector

Central Excise and Sales Tax

KARACHI/HYDERABAD/LAHORE/PESHAWAR/PINDI/QUETTA

SUB:EXEMPTION OF SALES TAX ON PARTS AND ACCESSORIES SUPPLIED AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT.

I am directed to refer to S. No. 8 of S.R.O. 565(I)/89, dated 3-6-1989; which allows exemption to the following:--

Parts and accessories of agricultural tractors, bus and truck engine and chassis if supplied as original equipment to such assemblers of "agricultural tractors, bus and truck engines and chassis as-are approved".

(1) A question has arisen as to whether or not batteries supplied as original equipment, to the assembler are also covered under the above exemption being pars/accessories.

(2) The question has been examined in the Board. It is clarified that the batteries are part/accessory of the tractors, bus and truck engines.

(3) Batteries, therefore, may be supplied without payment of Sale Tax subject to the conditions laid down in the aforesaid S. R. O."

On the other hand, the departmental officers in support of their contentions placed reliance on the clarification issued by C.B.R. in letter, dated 21st November, 1995, addressed to Exide Pakistan Limited, which reads as follows:--

C. No. 18(19)ST/89:Islamabad the 21st November, 1995

From:Akhtar Ali

Secretary (Sales Tax)

Tele 822848

To:The Chief Executive

Exide Pakistan Limited, 40-K, Block 6,

PEC Society

Dr. Mahmood Hussain Road.

Off Shahra-e-Faisal

Karachi (75400)

SUB:CLARIFICATION REGARDING INCLUSION OF BATTERIES AS PART/COMPONENTS OF VEHICLES.

Please refer to your letter No: GMF/STAX 95, dated 17-10-1995 on the above subject. Matter has been examined. You arc hereby informed that batteries are not parts of components of motor vehicles and therefore, cannot be treated as exempt under S.R.O. 555(I)/94. Attention in this connection is invited to Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System's Explanatory Notes to section XVII, which covers Chapters 86 to 97. Section note No. 2(f) of the said section states that:--

"The expressions "parts" and "parts and accessories" do not apply to the following articles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods of this section.

(f) Electric Machinery of equipment (Chapter 85).

Since batteries are electrical equipment classifiable in Chapter 85 no exemption of sales tax is available to them under S. No. 93 of S.R.O. 555(I)/94. The position has been un-ambiguously so since the-issue of the S.R.O. and all manufacturers of batteries have always known it to be so. This is evident from the fact that all the manufacturers are paying sales tax on the under reference goods. "

All these points came for consideration before the learned. Tribunal and the contention, whether clarification issued by C.B.R. in its letter, dated 21-11-1995 was retrospective or. prospective and whether the view contained in C.B.R. letter dated 31-1-1990 shall prevail over the letter, dated 21-11-995 also came for consideration. The learned Tribunal decides the issues in the following manner:--

"(9) We have heard the parties at length and are of the considered opinion that the C.B.R.'s ruling C. No. 16(19)/ST/89, dated 21-11-1995 was not retrospective and cannot be given effect to, for the period prior to 21-11-1995 since the issue of the first ruling of the C.B.R. vide its C.No. 16(3) ST/81, dated 31-1-1990.The fresh ruling may be taken effect from the date of its issue (21-111995) and the C.B.R. had rightly advised the Collector to decide the case on merit in the light of C.G.O. No. 21/1973 which lays down that a ruling shall apply from the date it is made. The entry of batteries in the deletion programmes also helps the appellant's case of exemption as conveyed by the C.B.R. vide its letter, dated 4-4-1994. The appellants have rightly relied upon the C.B.R.'s ruling in its letter, dated 31-1-1990 which should be applicable to parts and accessories of all automotive vehicles. However, this ruling shall benefit the appellants during the period wherein the exemption is open i.e. is not restricted to the parts and accessories falling under the Specific Tariff Heading of 87.08 of P.C.T We find that the first ruling, dated 31-1-1990 was issued in the wake of S.R.O. 565(I)/89, dated 3-6-1989 which exempted parts and accessories of given vehicles, falling under "respective headings". The C.B.R would be in its right to give different ruling if the condition of the said S.R.O. as to the P.C.T. headings was also modified. However, we find that the second ruling, dated 21-11-1995 was issued in the wake of S.R.O. 555(I)/1994, dated 9-6-1994 which also carried open exemption, (it did not mention any restrictive PCT heading at all). Hence, the previous ruling, dated 31-1-1990 shall prevail. S.R.Os. are statutory rules and have its legal force, which cannot be replaced through instructions or interpretation by the C.B.R. The C.B.R. cannot change the ruling unless the conditions of the S.R.O. are also changed in. accordance with law.

(10) The scrutiny of the relevant provisions of law and the S.R.Os. on the subject leads us to the conclusion that exemption from Sales Tax on electric batteries, supplied as original for the period during which the valid S.R.O. granted open exemption to parts, accessories or components of automotive vehicles falling under respective headings and without mentioning any Special Tariff Heading; but shall not be available for the period during which the said S.R.O. granted exemption to parts accessories or components of automotive vehicles falling under heading No. 87.08."

The contention of Mr. Shakil Ahmed, learned counsel for the Revenue is that the distinction made by the Tribunal in the applicability and scope of various notifications on the basis of exemption granted under specific P.C.T. Heading No. 87.08 and by description "under the respective headings" is not warranted and is against the principles of interpretation applicable to the matters falling under the purview of customs related issues. He has submitted that in all exemption notifications, the exemptions have been granted to the parts and accessories of the automotive vehicles. In some of the notifications, specific P.C.T. Heading No. 87.08 has been referred while in other notification the specific P.C.T. heading is not given and instead the expression "respective headings" has been used. He has submitted that so far notifications containing specific P.C. T. Heading 87.08 concerned, there is no ambiguity. As regards notifications with the expression "respective headings" ambiguity, if any is to be resolved with reference to the provisions contained in the Explanatory Notes of Customs Co-operation Council Brussels. He has contended that whenever any notification is issued with reference to respective headings" it means the heading for any goods under the above Explanatory Notes and has to be construed accordingly. According to Mr. Shakil Ahmad. whenever any exemption is granted with reference to P.C T. Heading 87.08 it refers to the description under the said heading i.e., component parts and accessories of automotive vehicles. The same effect follows from the exemption granted without specifying P.C.T. Heading 87.08 but with the expression "Respective Headings". He has submitted that the Harmonized Commodity description and coding system Explanatory Notes, are comprehensive in nature and provide heading for each kind of goods classified under separate headings. It also contains the guidelines for the purpose of interpretation and classification. He has contended that the learned Tribunal instead of having recourse to rules of interpretation and guidelines contained in the Harmonized Commodity description and coding system Explanatory Notes, for the purpose of classification of the goods, has merely considered the interpretation contained in two letters of C.B.R. issued in the years 1990 and 1995, and after giving a correct proposition has reached to the wrong conclusion. He has submitted that the impugned findings of the learned Tribunal that the exemption from the sales tax to electric batteries supplied as original equipment to the manufacturers of automotive vehicles shall be available, for the period during which valid S.R.O. granted open exemption to parts and accessories or component of automotive vehicles falling under the respective headings and without mentioning any specific tariff heading, is misdirected and incorrect. He has vehemently argued that while arriving to such conclusion, the Tribunal has not given any finding as to how and for what reasons the electric accumulator (storage batteries) came within the purview of parts and accessories of the automotive vehicles. He finally contended that parts and accessories of the automotive vehicles have been classified in Chapter 87 of the Harmonized Commodity description and coding system Explanatory Note, while electric accumulator (storage batteries) fall within the classification in Chapter 85 thereof and, therefore, electric accumulator (storage batteries) do not fall within the classification, parts and accessories of the automotive vehicles. Consequently, the exemption granted to parts and accessories of automotive vehicles is not available to the electric accumulator (storage batteries).

On the other hand, Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan, has supported the findings of the Tribunal to the extent that electric accumulators (storage batteries) are covered by the exemption notification in which the exemption has been granted with the expression "respective headings". He has however, assailed the finding of the Tribunal that the exemption is available during the period when the exemption was allowed with reference to "respective headings" only, and is not available during the period, where the S.R.O. granted exemption to parts and accessories or components of automotive vehicles falling under the Heading No.87.08. He has contended that once electric accumulator (storage batteries) is held to be part and accessory of the automotive vehicles then it shall continue to be so whether the exemption is granted under the specific P.C.T. Heading 87.08 or with the expression, "respective headings" because the exemption granted in all the S.R.Os. is to parts and accessories of the automotive vehicles.

We have very carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties before, us and have perused the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal and the Additional Collector, Sales Tax.

We are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has very rightly observed that, S.R.Os. are statutory rules and have its legal force, which cannot be replaced through instructions or interpretation of C.B.R. The C.B.R. cannot change the rulings unless conditions of the, "S.R.O. are also changed in accordance with law". However, we find that after referring the above principle, the learned Tribunal has fallen in error by taking into consideration the opinions of C.B.R. contained in its letters, dated 31-1-1990 and 21-1-1995. The learned Tribunal has unnecessarily entered into the discussion, whether opinion given by C.B.R. is retrospective or prospective. The question of prospective or retrospective application is relevant while interpreting a law only, and not the opinion of C.B.R which is merely a view held by an executive authority having no force of law. The result is that the finding of the Tribunal has been rendered self-contradictory in terms. On one hand, the learned Tribunal has held rightly that S.R.Os. are statutory rules and have its legal force which cannot be replaced through instruction or interpretation by the C.B.R. and that C.B.R. cannot change the rulings unless the condition of the S.R.O. are also changed in accordance with Law and on the other hand has held that the view contained in the C.B.R.s letter, dated 31-1-1990 is a ruling, which shall prevail-till the, ruling was changed through letter, dated 21-11-1995. By now, it stands established that although the C.B.R. is empowered to issue S.R.Os./notifications in exercise of delegated authority under the statute by way of subordinate legislation and so long it is not inconsistent with the provision of statute, shall have the force of law, but the C.B.R has no authority to give interpretation of law as it falls exclusively within the domain of judicial function. Although the C.B.R. occupies apex position in hierarchy of tax administration but under the scheme of law pertaining to direct and indirect taxation, it has no authority to give any judicial interpretation except in cases, where the C.B.R is empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction and any judgment is rendered in exercise of such judicial function. Barring the above exemption the C.B.R. is executive authority primarily concerned with the implementation of the" statutory provisions pertaining to direct and indirect federal taxes and in execution thereof is empowered under the various statutes to issue S.R.Os./notifications and frame rules in exercise of delegated authority by way of subordinate legislation. Thus any view/opinion, contained in any circular or letter, issued by C.B.R. is in the nature of an executive interpretation/opinion and cannot be treated at par with judicial interpretation and thus cannot be held to be a rule as is understood, in the common parlance of law. If any authority is required on this point, it is available in the case of Central Insurance Company and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others (1993 SCMR 1232).

Now we proceed to consider the proposition if the electric accumulator (storage batteries) are component parts and accessories of automotive vehicles. It will cover both the questions proposed for our consideration.

We find that the learned Tribunal has not given any finding in support of its view that exemption from sales tax on electric accumulator (storage batteries) supplied as original equipment to the manufacturers of the automotive vehicles, shall be available for the period during which the S.R.Os. granted open exemption to parts and accessories or component of automotive vehicles falling under "respective headings" and without mentioning any specific Tariff Heading. We are of the opinion that before coming to this conclusion, the learned Tribunal ought to have dilated upon the question whether electric accumulator (storage batteries) can be treated as part and accessories or component of automotive vehicles. For the purpose of deciding the issue, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the material and the provisions contained in the Harmonized Commodity description and coding system Explanatory Notes, without reference to the opinion of C.B.R. contained in the letters, dated 31-1-1990 and 21-11-1995. The reason being that, as already explained the opinion of C.B.R. contained in any letter does not have the force of law and Harmonized Commodity and Coding System Explanatory Notes in the Magna Carta on the matters, pertaining to classification under the customs law and are followed globally.

Section XVII of the Harmonized Commodity and Coding System Explanatory Notes deals with the vehicles aircraft, vessels, and associated transport equipment. In Note 2 under the section, it is explained that expression "parts" and "parts and accessories" do not apply to the articles enumerated therein, whether or not they are identifiable as the goods of section XVII. The electrical machinery or equipment (Chapter 85) is included in such articles. As already discussed electric accumulators (storage batteries) have been specifically classified of under P.C.T. Heading 85.07. Under headings, "general content of the section", it is stated that all land vehicles are covered under Chapter 87. It is further stated that subject to the provisions of Part (III), the section also covers parts and accessories of vehicles to the aircraft etc. of Chapters 86 to 88. It will be seen that while referring to parts and accessories `of vehicles Chapters 86 to 88 have been referred and no reference has been made to Chapter 85, which is indicative of the fact that parts and accessories of vehicles are covered under Chapters 86 to 88 and the goods falling under Heading 85 do not fall within the parts and accessories of the vehicles.

In Part (III) of the Explanatory Notes under section XVII, sub heading "parts and accessories" it is stated the Chapters other than Chapter 89 of Section XVII, provide for classification of parts and accessories of the vehicles, aircraft or equipment concerned, however these headings apply only to those parts and accessories which comply with all three of the following conditions:--

(a) They must not be excluded by terms of Note 2 to section XVII;

(b) They must be suitable for use solely or principally with the articles, to Chapters 86 to 88; and

(c) They must not be more specifically included elsewhere in the nomenclature.

In paragraph A Part (III) of the Explanatory Notes, to section XVII certain parts and accessories are specifically mentioned, which arc excluded by Note 2. At Serial No. 7 under sub-heading "electrical machinery or equipment of Chapter 85", sonic example has been given, which include electric accumulators under Heading 85.07. Several other examples are given, which are not necessary to be enumerated for the purpose of issue under consideration. Under condition "C" stated above, such parts and accessories are excluded from the parts and accessories of motor vehicles which are included elsewhere in the nomenclature. Examples have been given in paragraph "C" electrical accumulators are not included in the examples given in para "C", but the list is not exhaustive and is merely illustrative. However, since electric accumu lators (storage batteries) is specifically provided under Heading 85.07, therefore, it is excluded from parts and accessories of the motor vehicles covered under Chapters 86 to 88 of section XVII of Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Explanatory Notes.

Consequent to above discussion, it is held that electric accumulators (storage batteries) are not included in classification of parts and accessories or component of the motor vehicles. It shall not be so included whether the exemption is granted to parts, and accessories/components of motor vehicles specifically under P.C.T. Heading 87.08 or with the use of expression "respective headings", the reason being that the expression "respective headings" cannotes reference to the P.C.T. headings and classification of the goods under respective) classification, which have to be determined in the light of principles and; guidelines contained in Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding; System Explanatory Notes.

At this juncture, we would like to make reference, to the) established principle pertaining to the law of taxation, that a tax is to be levied/charged under clear language which admits of no ambiguity and ambiguity if any is to be resolved in favour of citizens/tax-payers and not in favour of Revenue/Government. There are no presumptions and, a inferences in respect of a tax and if any thing is not covered within the clear, plain an unambiguous language of law, there can he no presumption to tax. However, so far the principle relating to the exemption is concerned, it is not the same. Once it is established that a tax is chargeable then for the purpose of availing exemption, a person claiming the same has to establish that the claims is squarely covered under the exemption granted and the law pertaining to exemption is to be strictly interpreted and cannot be allowed on the basis of mere inferences or any presumption. The effect of exemption is to that the payment of tax is allowed to escape which is otherwise chargeable.

Keeping the above principle in view, the law relating to exemption is not to be interpreted liberally in favour of tax-payers and has to be interpreted strictly. If any claim to exemption is not fully covered under, the law pertaining to exemption, it is not be allowed.'

The result of the above discussion is, that, we hold that electric accumulators (storage batteries) do not constitute the parts and accessories or components of motor vehicles and as such are not entitled to exemption granted under various notifications referred to in this judgment. It is further held, that C.B.R. is empowered to issue S.R.Os. and grant exemption from chargeability of tax under delegated authority, and is further empowered to amend, modify, rescind, substitute and alter the terms of exemption but has no statutory jurisdiction to interpret the same which lies exclusively within the domain of the functionaries/authorities, conferred with quasi-judicial/judicial powers. The C.B.R. is not empowered to issue instructions/circulars which may interfere with the exercise of quasi-judicial jurisdiction, vested in various authorities under the statute. If any such letters, circulars or instructions are issued by way of clarification for the convenience /guidance of the tax-payers or departmental officers and any dispute arise in respect of correctness/ validity of such instructions/clarification etc. It is neither binding on the taxpayers nor they are to be followed by forums invested with quasi -judicial function under the statute. If any beneficial view is taken by the C.B.R., or steps are taken to reduce the rigours and hardship of any law and such view is remedial in nature, the taxpayer may avail the benefit thereof and the departmental officers employed in execution of the collection or levy of tax should follow such beneficial instructions, but it has no force of law, so as to bind the quasi-judicial forums in discharge of their quasi-judicial functions. However, such beneficial steps should not enter the realm of judicial interpretation. The view contained in C.B.R. letter, dated 31-1-1990 does not fall within the purview of beneficial/remedial step to mitigate the hardship or rigour of the law and has no legal binding force.

The findings of the Tribunal impugned in two appeals at the instance of department are, therefore, hereby set aside, and questions proposed at the instance of department for our consideration are answered in the terms that electric accumulators (storage batteries) are not component parts of the motor vehicles and the goods falling under P.C.T. Heading 85.07 cannot be treated as component parts of the motor vehicle and the goods, falling under P.C.T. Heading 87.08. The exemption granted to the goods falling under P.C.T. Heading 87 or with the expression "respective headings" are not extended/available to the goods falling under P.C.T. Heading 85.07.

Both the appeals at the instance of Department (Spl. Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 68 and 69 of 2001) are allowed and the appeal at the instance of Messrs Excide Pakistan Limited (Spl. Sales Tax Appeal No. 164 of 2001) is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment under seal of the Court and signature of the Registrar be sent to the Tribunal, which shall dispose of the appeals in conformity with the findings contained in this judgment.

H.B.T./C-11/KOrder accordingly.