Pakistan Case Law← Search
1987 SCMR 1910

MANNO O INDUSTRIES LTD. vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

Citation1987 SCMR 1910
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 100 and 101 of 1980 Writ Petitions Nos.
Date1987-01-25
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

JAVID IQBAL, J.-- In both these petitions namely Civil Petition No.100 of 1980 and Civil Petition No.101 of 1980 leave is being sought against the order dated 2nd October, 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions No.5033 of 1978 and No.5034 of 1978.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner company exported two consignments of cotton yarn in 1971 and in July 1972 and obtained rebate in the Excise Duty for the reason that the number of counts in the exported yarn were 21/1. Subsequently the laboratory test of the Custom Department revealed that the number of counts of the two consignments were 19/1 and not 21/1. Consequently the Custom Department issued show-cause notices on different dated upon the petitioner company as to why it should not reimburse the Excise rebate obtained by it and also pay penalty in respect of the two consignments. The explanation of the petitioner was not accepted and it was ordered that it should reimburse the Excise rebate and also penalties were imposed. In appeal the orders were maintained although the amount of penalties was reduced, in the revision to the Federal Government the order was again upheld but the amount of penalties were further reduced.

The petitioner eventually challenged these orders in the aforesaid writ petitions which were dismissed in limine for the reason that there was a finding of fact as against the petitioner's company that the counts in the exported yarn were 19/1 and not 21/1 and that in such circumstances the departmental authorities could not be ordered to hold fresh tests. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. There is a finding of fact as against the petitioner-company calling for no interference in this case. As a result these petitions are dismissed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search