1. Granted with all just exceptions.
2. In this Reference Application under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the following questions of law have been proposed for our opinion:--- "(i) Whether or not the Tribunal was right in overlooking the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System, which are integral part of the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969 as substituted by the Finance Ordinance, 1988 and provide guidelines for the classification of goods when these are classifiable under two or more headings?
(ii) Whether or not the Tribunal was right in holding that no fresh reasoning has been given by the respondent (present appellant) despite the fact that the aforesaid rules, which were not discussed earlier in the Sindh High Court and Supreme Court Judgments on the identical issue, and were specifically raised by the respondent before the Tribunal?"
' Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Karachi Bench I, dated 15-9-2005 in Sales Tax Appeal No,K-139/2005 out of which the proposed questions, allegedly, arise.
' A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal shows that the issue whether 'nitrous oxide' gas falls within the classification of `medicament' under Chapter 30-3 of the Pakistan Customs.
Tariff, already stands decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 12-1-1989 in C.P. Na.D-351 of 1987 "Pakistan Oxygen Limited v. Pakistan and others" and the said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18-2-1990 in C.P.L.A. No,268-K of 1989. The present Respondent M/s. BOC Pakistan Limited was earlier known as M/s. Pakistan Oxygen Limited (as informed Mr. Azeem Nafees, Senior Auditor (Legal) the departmental representative).
' Since the issue already stands decided in the case of very Respondent in this Reference application, therefore we asked the learned counsel for the applicant whether there is any change in the law after the pronouncement of above judgments to which he replied, that although there is no change in the law but at the time of earlier judgments the Rules of Interpretation contained in the Harmonized Commodity description and Coding System (Explanatory Notes) issued by World Customs Organization which has become a part of the Customs Act by Finance Act, 1988 were not considered.
' The learned counsel for the applicant, in fact, wants a reinterpretation of the issue which already stands decided by a Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without any change in the law itself, on the ground that Rules of Interpretation were not considered. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted by us, for the simple reasons that without change in the law the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court shall hold the 'field and shall be of binding nature on us under Article 189 of the Constitution, which provides that any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan.
' It is not within our competence to re-interpret the law after it has already been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. If the department seeks re-interpretation of the law the proper forum is the Hon'ble supreme Court and not this Court.
' For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Tribunal in following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently no new question of law requiring interpretation by us has been proposed in this reference application, which stands dismissed in limine.