| Case ID |
44216a50-cd56-4756-b299-f19bd33cddce |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C. A. No.49 of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 17, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, upholding the lower Tribunal's decision on the refund claim under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 11 and 36-C. The court held that the Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the deposit of the refund amount could not be appealed, and the evidentiary value of the photocopy of the treasury challan was not properly raised before the Tribunal, thus the appeal was refused. |
| Summary |
In the significant case of C. A. No.49 of 2003 adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on April 17, 2003, the central issue pertained to the interpretation and application of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically Sections 11 and 36-C. The appellant, represented by Ch. Muhammad Hussain, sought a substantial refund claim amounting to Rs.20,61,600, which was initially approved partially and then largely rejected by the Collector of Customs, Faisalabad. The rejection was based on the appellant's failure to produce the original treasury challan, with the submitted photocopy being deemed insufficient as proof of deposit.
Challenging this decision, the appellant appealed to the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, which overturned the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal accepted the photocopy as valid evidence, asserting that the deposit of Rs.800,000 had been duly made on January 31, 1978, as corroborated by various documents and certifications from financial institutions like UBL Nishatabad Branch.
However, the decision was appealed to the Lahore High Court, where the judges Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali scrutinized the proceedings. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the deposit were not subject to further appeal under Section 36-C of the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the court noted that the evidentiary challenge concerning the photocopy of the challan was neither raised before the Tribunal nor addressed in their ruling. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine.
This case underscores the stringent requirements for evidence in excise-related refund claims and delineates the appellate boundaries within Pakistan's legal framework. It highlights the importance of original documentation in financial adjudications and sets a precedent for future cases involving the validity of photocopied evidences under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order. Legal practitioners and entities engaged in excise duties must take heed of this ruling, ensuring meticulous compliance with evidence protocols to secure favorable outcomes. The decision also reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural correctness and limiting appeals to substantive legal questions, thereby streamlining the appellate process and reinforcing legal certainty in fiscal matters. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Collector of Customs, Faisalabad,
Messrs Crescent Sugar Mills
|
| Judges |
NASEEM SIKANDAR,
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Muhammad Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
Collector of Customs, Faisalabad
|
| Respondents |
Messrs Crescent Sugar Mills
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 865,
2003 PTD 1855
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)
|
| Sections |
11,
36-C
|