JUDGMENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUL C.J.- This judgment will govern disposal of above-mentioned 4 petitions for leave to appeal filed by Central Board of Revenue (CBR) against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court dated 3.10.1997.
2. The dispute in the above-mentioned petitions relates to the duty drawbacks, itappears that this dispute arose with regard to the amount of duty drawbacks claimed by the petitioners at the time of export of the consignments. The respondents, who are engaged in manufacturing of cloth, are also exporting the same after its manufacture. The respondents have claimed duty drawbacks on the exported consignments from time to time, itappears that the claim for duty drawback was disputed by the authorities whereupon the respondents filed 2 writ petitions before the Lahore High Court challenging the action of the authority in denying the duty drawback. A learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petitions as follows:- "16. The question as to what amount if any is due from the petitioner on account of its alleged availment of payment of concessional rates of duty and taxes which could be availed only on the export of specified quantity of manufactured cloth, duty and taxes etc payable on the manufacture cloth sold in the local market by the petitioner shall be determined by the respondents after giving opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. Both the matters shall be determined and decided within six weeks positively and compliance reported.
17. After deciding all these matters the amount of Duty Draw Back under the standard S.R.Os shall be determined and whatever is found to be recoverable from the petitioner the same shall be adjusted against the amounts payable to it as Duty Draw Backs, In case the amount of Duty Draw Backs is in excess of the amount payable by the petitioner the excess amount shall be paid to it and in case it is found to be less the remaining amount after adjustment shall be recovered from it.
18. Both the writ petitions stand decided in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge, the petitioners and respondents preferred 4 ICAs before the High Court which were heard and disposed of by a learned Division Bench as follows:- "In view of what has been stated above, ICA Nos. 356 and 357 of 1997 are dismissed while ICA Nos.
376 and 377 of 1996 are allowed and the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge regarding restoration of benefits derived under notification SRO 562 (l)/90 is set aside and it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to the benefits of standardized duty drawback notification provided it refunds or restores the benefits which it had received under notification SRO 722 (l)/89 on the import of duty from PVA/Chemical."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the' petitioners as well as caveators at length, itis not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the parties that the respondents will be entitled to the duty drawbacks only upon proof of the fact that they had paid the duty on the raw material consumed in the manufacture of the cloth which is being exported by them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless the exporters/manufacturers have been issued licence under SRO 722 (l)/89 they are not entitled to the benefit of SRO 962(l)/90 does not appear to be correct. The two notifications mentioned above deal with 2 distinct and separate subjects.
We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Divisions Bench of the High Court that the availability of concession of one SRO is not dependant on the above-mentioned other SRO. However, the learned counsel, for the parties agree that the respondents Mill will only be entitled to the claim of duty drawbacks provided they had paid the duty on raw-material which has been consumed in the manufacturing of cloth, at the time of its export out of the country, In case no duty has been paid at the time of clearance of raw-material used in the manufacturing of cloth, the question of claim of duty drawbacks would not arise at all. It is, therefore, quite clear that unless the respondents had paid the duties and taxes in terms of SRO 722 (0/89, they would not be entitled to claim any duty drawback at the time of export of their consignment. These petitions, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly.