Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS Respondent: FEDERATION through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 2 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Khilji Arif Hussain, Sabihuddin Ahmed Title:Messrs DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs FEDERATION through
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 2 others Case No.: Constitution Petition No, 1415 of 1995 Date of Judgment:2004-09-03 Reported As: 2005 PTD 13 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts of this petition as learned counsel for the parties states that only a question of law requires to be decided. The petitioner has called in question the inclusion of "transportation charges" for the purpose of determining the value of the goods manufactured by them in terms of the Central Excises Act, 1944, despite the fact that such charges were never borne by them, but by the purchaser of the goods. It is not necessary even to examine the factual assertion to the aforesaid effect inasmuch as Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has brought to our notice the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pakistan v. Kohat Cement Co. PLD 1995 SC 659. The majority, in the above judgment, after drawing a distinction between the comparative provisions of the statutes operating in Pakistan and India, proceeded to hold that transportation charges could be included in the determination of value of the goods and, therefore, it was of little consequence whether they were paid by the manufacturer or the stockist.' Fazal Karim, J., however, took a contrary view. Mr. Zaidi also argued that for the purpose of determining value of the goods under section 4, the respondents had also added 20% of the "transportation charges", calculated by them and admittedly there was no evidence or material before the concerned authorities to do so. The contention to the above effect is indeed formidable as no assessment of such charges could be made without notice to the petitioners. In the circumstances, we are bound to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
---
## Page 2
we are constrained to decline relief to the petitioner. With regard to the loading and unloading charges, however, we would direct the Adjudicating Officer to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter determine the quantum of charges so payable on the basis of evidence and material before him. This exercise may be undertaken within four months from today and in case it is not done, the amount received on the basis of loading/unloading charges may be refunded. The petition is accordingly disposed of.