SANDOZ PAK LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, 2014 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 1231 (2014)

(For review of the judgment dated 19-12-2005 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.863 of 2000)

Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---

----S.3 & First Sched. Entry 04.03---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.188---Review of Supreme Court Judgment---Scope---Levy of excise duty on a chemical called "Leucophor"---Petitioner-company manufactured a product/chemical called "Leucophor"---Customs and revenue authorities demanded excise duty from the petitioner-company in respect of the said product---Petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the High Court praying that "Leucophor" was not classifiable under Entry 04.03 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; that demand of excise duty by customs and revenue authorities was an afterthought and such belated demand had been raised after the goods had been cleared and sold---High Court allowed said constitutional petition, relying on one of its earlier judgments on the subject passed in Constitution Petition No. D-865 of 1992 and set aside orders of customs and revenue authorities---Customs and revenue authorities preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which appeal was allowed and order passed by High Court was set aside on the basis that chemical which was subject matter of Constitution Petition No. D-865 of 1992 was different than the chemical in the present case---Petitioner-company filed present review petition seeking review of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and contended that the Supreme Court while passing its judgment did not take into consideration some of the judgments passed by the High Court on the subject---Validity---Supreme Court passed its judgment (i.e. judgment under review) after hearing the parties at considerable length, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, and it also took note of the judgment of the High Court on the subject on which High Court had placed reliance i.e. Constitution Petition No. D-865 of1992---Petitioner-company failed to point out any error floating on record in the judgment under review, which being just, did not call for any interference---Review petition was dismissed accordingly with costs.

Constitution Petition No.D-865 of 1992 ref.

M. Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2014.

ORDER

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court, whereby Civil Appeal No.863 of 2000 filed by the respondent-Government was accepted and judgment dated 30-10-1999 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi was set aside.

2.Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of instant review petition are that the petitioner (respondent in Civil Appeal No. 863 of 2000) filed a Constitutional Petition No.D-514 of 1995 before the High CourtofSindh, Karachi, challenging the orders dated 27-9-1989and8-3-1995, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs, Excise and Sales Tax, Karachi and Central Board of Revenue, respectively, demanding Rs.1,34,60,396 in lieu of excise duty from the petitioner. Through the Constitutional Petition, the petitioner had prayed that both these orders be declared contrary to law and of no legal effect and had sought declaration to the effect that "Leucophor" is not classifiable under Entry 04.03 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner is a company deals in manufacturing of a product called "Leucophor" and it was the case of the petitioner that the respondents demand was an afterthought and such belated demand had been raised after the goods had been cleared and sold.

3.It appears from the record that the learned High Court accept the Constitutional Petition of the petitioner by means of the judgment dated 30-10-1999, while relying upon its earlier judgment in Constitutional Petition No.D-865 of 1992, which judgment has been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 25-4-1997 passed in Civil Petition No.402-K of 1995.

4.However, feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 30-10-1999 passed by the learned High Court, the respondent-Government preferred appeal, by leave of this Court, which was allowed by means of the judgment under review dated 19-12-2005 and order dated 30-10-1999 passed by the learned High Court was set aside.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the judgment under review has been passed by this Court without taking into consideration some of the judgments passed by the High Court of Sindh on the subject, therefore, the judgment under challenge needs to be reviewed.

6.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully perused the judgment under review as well as the available record. From perusal of record, it transpires that the judgment of this court, called in question through this review petition, has been passed after hearing the parties counsel at considerable length, while taking into consideration the evidence available on record. Through the judgment under review, this Court has also taken note of the judgment passed by the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No. D-865 of 1992 and came to the conclusion that in the said matter, product known as 'Tinopal' was an 'Optical Bleaching Agent', 'Fluorescent Brightening Agent' and was not capable of dyeing whereas, in the instant case no such findings have been recorded by the 'laboratory in the test report, which accompanied the show-cause notice.

In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out any error floating on record in the judgment under review, which being just does not call for any interference, therefore, this review petition is dismissed with costs.

MWA/S-9/SCPetition dismissed.