ABRAR HUSAIN NAQVI, ADDL. SECRETARY J.-l. This revision application filed by M/s United Industries, Limited, Faisalabad (hereinafter called the applicants) is directed against order-in appeal No. 73- Excise/1988 dated 7th May, 1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals) Northern Zone, Lahore.
2. Mr. Najib Ahmed Chaudhry, advocate, appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicants on 8th February, 1989 at Lahore. He stated that the demand for duty involved in this : case was time barred. The Deputy Collector in view of the time bar had vacated the demand show cause notice but ; imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty involved. The point of | the learned counsel is that according to the definition of duty | given in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the duty ! Includes regulatory duty and any other sums payable under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. He contended that since the penalty was the sum charged under the provision of the Act, it was included in the definition of duty. The time bar under Rule 10 was, therefore, applicable to penalty as well. As such the demand of penalty was also attracted by the mischief of the limitation stipulated under rule 10 and was thus time barred. In this connection he referred PTCL1988 CL-260.
3. The plea of the learned advocate is correct. Accordingly the revision application is allowed.