1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This appeal, by the leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan, dated the 21st of September, 1977, by which a constitution petition moved by the appellant in the matter of exemption from the levy of central excise duty or the services, provided at its hotel called the Imdad Hotel, Quetta was dismissed.
2. ' By a notice dated the 21st of October, 1971, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Quetta, required the appellant to pay excise duty at the rate of 10% of the charges made for all the services rendered by the appellant to its customers is respect of the rooms in blocks A & D of its hotel with effect from the 26th of June, 1971, as envisaged by section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Ordinance, 1,70. It was stated that the duty was loveable as the appellant's hotel did not qualify for exemption granted by means of Notification No, SRO- 224(1)/71 dated the 29th of June, 1971, issued under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the reason that the charges levied by the appellant as room rent exceeded Rs, 25 per day on any one day during the year. The appellant contested its liability to pay the duty in question on the ground that the rent of the rooms of the hotel did not exceed Rs, 22 per day, and that the charges for breakfast were levied separately as breakfast was not included in room rent, and was optional at the choice of the customer. This explanation was, however, not accepted by the Central Excise authorities. The appeal and revision filed by the appellant were rejected by the Collector of Customs and the Federal Government of Pakistan.
3. ' In these circumstances, the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, which has, however, upheld the view taken by the departmental authorities.
4. ' In order to appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Basharatullah, learned counsel for the appellant, it will be useful to reproduce here the provisions of section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, as well as the notification dated the 29th of June, 1971, by which certain exemptions were granted from the levy of excise duty.
5. ' Subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act provides that : "there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods produced or manufactured, and on all excisable services provided or rendered, in Pakistan, as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule."
6. ' Before referring to the contents of the First Schedule, it may be stated that clause (dd) of section 2 of the Act, inserted by the Finance Ordinance of 1970, defines 'excisable services' as meaning services, facilities and utilities specified in Part H of the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise. Part II of the First Schedule enumerates such services, and for or purpose item No. 1 is relevant, which reads as under :- "All services, facilities, and utilities, including catering supplies and merchandise provided or rendered by an hotel."
7. Reading the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act along with item 1 of Part II of the First Schedule, it becomes clear that unless any exemption is granted by the Government under section 12-A of the Act, all services, facilities and utilities, including catering supplies and merchandise provided or rendered at all hotels would be subject to the levy of excise duty. However by a notification issued on the 29th of June, 1970, and partially amended on the 29th of July, 1970, certain exemptions were granted which were further modified by the notification issued on the 26th of June, 1971. According to this notification exemptions were granted in the case of excisable services provided or rendered by a hotel the daily rent of any room or apartment of which, with or without service charge and charges on account of breakfast or air-conditioning, did not exceed Rs, 25 on any day during the year. There were other exemptions as well, but, in the present case, we are not concerned with them.
8. ' The submission made by Mr. Basharatullah is that the maximum room rent charged at the appellant's hotel does not exceed Rs, 22 per day in any block, and the charges for breakfast are shown separately, this being an optional item at the choice of the customer and the departmental authorities, as well as the learned Judges in the High Court, were in error in thinking that the appellant's hotel did not qualify for exemption in terms of clause (I) of the relevant notification. The learned counsel contends that the rent charged for the room is net an excisable item, and the duty is to be levied only on the service charged and charges on account of breakfast or air- conditioning, if they are included in the room rent so as to make the total amount exceed Rs, 25 per day : but in the case of the appellant's hotel no such inclusion is compulsory, and in all receipts issued to the customers charges for food and breakfast are shown separately. The learned counsel submits that the true intention of the notification seems to be to deny the exemption to those hotels in which the breakfast charges are compulsorily included in the daily rent of the room, as in that case the customers have no option, but to pay charges for breakfast whether they wish to avail of this facility or not.
9. ' We regret we see no merit in the submissions made by Mr. Basbaratullah. We have already referred to the definition of excisable services in clause (dd) of section 2 of the Act, as well as to Item 1 in Part II of the First Schedule to the Act, which clearly contemplates that "all services, facilities, and utilities, including catering supplies and merchandise provided or renders by an hotel", shall be treated as excisable services. The provision of a furnished room or apartment by a hotel is clearly in the nature of a service or a facility, and so is the provision of b-makefast, and the exemption clause contemplates that it will be available only if the daily room rent, with or without charges for breakfast or air-conditioning or other services does not exceed Rs, 25 per day on any day in the year. The exemption clause is couched in clear and unambiguous language, and it is susceptible of only one interpretation, namely, that the exemption will not be available if the total amount charged as room rent, with or without the other charges mentioned above exceeds Rs, 75 pe B day. In other words, there is no room for the argument that the preparation of separate bills on account of room rent and other charges would enable the hotel to claim exemption even though the aggregate amount of the two bills for the same room exceeds Rs, 25 per day.
10. ' On this view of the matter, we consider that the departmental authorities as well as the learned Judges in the High Court were right in holding that the appellant's hotel did not qualify for exemption from the levy of excise duty, as the daily rent of some of its rooms with charges on account of breakfast exceeded Rs, 25 per day on any day during the year, which is under consideration here, namely 1970-71. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.