COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE VS Messrs DECSON ENGINEERING LTD., LAHORE, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 135 (2003)

Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---

----Ss. 3 & 36(c)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.210---Appeal before High Court---Evasion of payment of excise duty---Demand of excise duty with additional duty and penalty---Payment of excise duty by respondent before hearing of appeal by Appellate Tribunal---Remission of additional duty and penalty by Tribunal in view of its earlier decision taken in an identical case---Validity---Discretion exercised by Tribunal was neither unfounded nor perverse---No question of law arose out of impugned order---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.

Mian Qamar-ud-Din for Appellant.

Rana Muhammad Afzal for Respondent.

ORDER.

By way of an order in original, dated 18-3-1999 Addl. Collector (Adjudication), Lahore found the respondent Messrs Decson Engineering Limited liable to pay excise duty amounting to Rs.9,50,000 along with additional duty and penalty of Rs.20,000. The respondents failed before the first appellate forum as their appeal was rejected by Collector (Appeals-II), Lahore on 28-8-1999.

2. On further appeal before the Tribunal it appears that the respondent did not contest the chargeability of duty on bulk tanks made of iron or steel supplied to Messrs Burshane Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited for storage of liquefied petroleum gas. Therefore, the learned Members of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the respondent to the extent of principal amount of the excise duty earlier found chargeable in the order in original. However, additional duty and penalty were waived to follow their earlier judgment recorded in Messrs Petrosin Ravi Industries Ltd. v. Additional Collector (Adjudication), Central Excise, Lahore, (Appeal No.CEX.A. No.23/LB/2000). This has grieved the department.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that no question of law can be said to have' arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the appellant/Revenue that even before the hearing of appeal before the Tribunal the respondent discharged its liability by paying the aforesaid amount of Central Excise Duty. Also learned Members of the Tribunal noted that earlier in the said identical case which was maintained by this Court on 10-10-2001 in C.A. 290 of 2001 they had remitted additional tax and penalty. It was in order to conform to their earlier decision that the learned Members of the Tribunal decided to remit additional duty and penalty. That decision appears neither against record nor the discretion exercised in that regard can be said to be unfounded and perverse. In the given situation therefore, no question of law arises to be answered by this Court under section 36-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

4. Dismissed in limine.

S.A.K./C-237/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.