AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:-- (a)To declare that both the Calsolene Oils in questions were and are not `detergents' and, therefore, not liable to the duty of central excise and order as passed in the case by the Respondent No. 2 (as also at the first stage) was and is illegal and bad in law and of no legal effect; (b)to pass consequential order or orders, direction or directions, instruction or instructions that no part of the impugned order of the Respondent No. 2 (as also the earlier order of the Respondent No. 2) is liable to be enforced or excecuted against the Petitioners arid no officer of the Respondents or persons working under or through them shall act to enforce or piess the said order or any part thereof or any demand thereunder against the Petitioners in any manner whatsoever.
(c)to grant further/additional/additional, (sic) relevant or (sic) direction or directions order or orders as may be deemed fit or proper or otherwise appropriate in or about the circumstances mentioned hereinabove."
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioners are a public limited company inter alia, manufacturing and selling Calsolene Oils HS/Special, either of which is a golden yellow viscous liquid and highly sulphonated oil. They have been engaged in the manufacturing of the aforesaid two products since 1981 which were being cleared from their factory under supervised clearance by the Central Excise Authority without payment of Excise Duty and payment of Sales Tax at 12-1/2% ad valorem. In December, 1986 the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excise Karachi made out case against the petitioner on the ground that the products are 'detergents' liable to Central Excise Duty at 20% of the retail price under item No.04.05 of the Central Excise Schedule. This investigation led to adjudication of the matter by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs Karachi who decided the matter in two separate cases, one for the period prior to July, 1983 and the other a for the subsequent period holding that the properties of the chemical in question conform to the description and the definition of the term `detergent' as given in the definition of Central Excise Schedule and therefore, to be affected by the excise laws. In accordance with the above a demand for Central Excise duty payable on the aforesaid products for the above mentioned period was made.
3. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan arguing for the petitioner--submitted that the said products in fact acre not `detergent'. He has drawn our attention to the definition of the `detergents' as defined in schedule at B of item No. 04.05 which reads as under:-- "B. Detergents--- 'Detergent' means organic and synthetic suface active agents,, surface active preparations emulsifiers and foaming or washing preparations, in any form excluding products falling under item No. 04.04 and sub-item A above, whether or not containing soap and includes soap flakes, soap powders and the soap containing synthetic detergents:"
He has also drawn our attention to a test report from Textile Industry Research & Development Centre which. Shows' as under:-- "Sample of Calsolene Oil HS (i) Both the samples show very (Special). poor detergency and good wetting properties as compare with standard detergents and wetting agents.
Sample of Calsolene Oil HS.(ii) On the basis of these findings both the above samples can be considered as wetting agents."
The above report shows that the two products in .Petition do show that the same contained elements of `detergents' also and therefore, they fall within the definition of word `detergents' as mentioned above. It will also be advantageous here to reproduce the following paragraph from the impugned order which reads as under:-- "Now, the fundamental question for determination in the present case is whether the terms `detergents' is to be interpreted in the narrow meaning of washing and cleaning preparations only, or the entire family of products containing surface active properties is to be included in the scope of the term. The well-established principle of the interpretation of statutes is that where the definition of an article is given in the statute itself, such definition shall prevail over all other interpretations, meanings, or inferences. In the subject case, a comprehensive definition of `detergents' has been given in the statute itself. This definition is exhaustive as well as exclusive.
When it says that detergent "means", per force all articles listed in the definition would be included, individually in the connotation of the term `detergents'. The definition begins by stating that detergent means organic and surface active agents, followed by a coma; which implies that surface active agents as a group would be included in the meaning of the term, in addition to the articles enlisted thereafter. Similarly surface active preparations and washing preparations would also be included in the definition as independent entitles:'
From the above discussion it will be seen that the petitioner has not been able to show that the said two products are not detergents'.
4. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan has further referred to S.R.O. No. 7(1)/83, dated 5th January, 1983 to show that certain products manufactured or produced on or after 1st July, 1980 are exempt--From sales tax. He has relied on the said S.R.O. Which reads as under:-- "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) of section 7 of the Sales Tax, Act 1951 (111 of 1951), the Federal Government is pleased to exempt goods manufactured or produced on or after 1st July, 1980 from whole of sales tax leviable thcreon subject to the following conditions, namely:-- (i)the manufacturer or producer did not recover Sales tax chargeable on the goods prior to the date on which the goods are held to be liable to sales tax; (ii)no action to recover sales tax on the goods had been initiated against the manufacturer or producer to collect sales tax upto the said date;
(iii) no other manufacturer of the same goods was paying sales tax upto the said date; and
(iv) the manufacturer or producer has been discharging his tax liability regularly as from the said date:"
We are afraid we cannot agree with the above contention of the learned counsel in the circumstances of the present case as on the petitioners own admission they have been paying sales tax at 12-1/2% whereas they were liable to pay same at 20%.
5. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan also stated that the petitioners have already filed the revision petition before the Central Board of Revenue which is pending adjudication. The petitioner has, therefore, already sought the remedy available to them in law and this petition at this stage will not be maintainable, The petitioners arc at liberty to pursue the revision filed by them.
6. For the above reasons we find no force in the present petition which is dismissed in limine.