Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Order in Revision No.66/Rev. CE/St. of 1989, decided on 8th February, 1989.
S. 2(CCC) Central Excises Rules, 1944, R.10 Duty, demand for Duty includes regulatory duty and any other sum payable under any of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or Rules made thereunder Where duty payable was time, barred, penalty in respect of the acts relating thereto, could not be imposed as definition of duty also included penalty Time bar under provisions of R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would thus be applicable to penalty as well.
Najib Ahmad Choudhry for Petitioner.
Syed Yousaf Ali for Respondent.
This revision application filed by M/s. United Industries, Limited, Faisalabad (hereinafter called the applicants) is directed against Order in Appeal No.73 Excise/1988 dated 7th May, 1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals) Northern Zone, Lahore.
2. Mr. Najib Ahmed Choudhry, Advocate, appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicants on 8th February, 1989 at Lahore. He stated that the demand for duty involved in this case was time-barred. The Deputy Collector in view of the time bar had vacated the demand show cause notice but imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty involved. The point of the learned counsel is that according to the definition of duty given in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the duty includes regulatory duty and any other sums payable under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. He contended that since the penalty was the sum charged under the provision of the Act, it was included in the definition of duty. The time bar under rule 10 was therefore, applicable to penalty as well. As such the demand of penalty was also attracted by the mischief of the limitation stipulated under rule 10 and was thus time barred. In this connection he referred 1987 PTD 386.
3. The plea of the learned Advocate is correct. Accordingly the revision application is allowed.
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer