' RANA BHAGWAN-DAS, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 15-8-2000 rendered by a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court directed against the judgment dated 13- 9-1999 of learned Custom Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench. By the impugned judgment, learned High Court dismissed the appeal under section 36-C of the Central Excise. Act, 1944.
2. Respondent company were originally manufacturers of varnish. However, after the Resin was exempted from the payment of sales tax vide SRO 666(1)/81, dated 25-6-1981, they applied on 22- 8-1981 for the grant of Central Excise Licence for manufacture of the Resin. After the grant of licence, according to sales tax authorities, respondent started clearing the same product as "Syntholic Synthetic Clear Resin" with intent to avoid payment of central excise duty and sales tax thereon.
Respondent impugned the notice and demand of duty by the sales tax heirarchy and the dispute in the earlier round of litigation was resolved in C.P.L.A. No,279-K of 1996 in which the case was remanded to the Deputy Collector-II, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Karachi with direction to decide the matter afresh after getting the respondent's product analysed by a laboratory in a transparent manner after associating the respondent with such process. It appears that the petitioner did not care to abide by the direction given by this Court and had a fresh *adjudication through Order-in- Original dated 31-12-1997 by Additional Collector-II, Central Excise, Karachi, declaring the respondent's product as varnish. This order was impugned before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed and impugned orders were declared to be illegal, infructuous one not enforceable at law. This was, however, prejudice to the right of the department to ascertain the nature of goods sought to be cleared by the respondent in future.
3. Respondent company being not satisfied with the correctness of this judgment appealed before the High Court of Sindh where a Division Bench held that the findings of Additional Collector of Customs in third round of litigation were set aside by the learned Appellate Tribunal primarily on the ground that laboratory tests of, the impugned goods were not carried out in a transparent manner in presence of the importers and no adequate reasons were assigned for rejecting some reports and accepting others. Learned High Court declined to embark upon factual controversy as to the nature of the goods imported/manufactured by the respondent and dismissed the appeal in limine, hence this petition.
4. Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the petitioner, attempted to reagitate the same facts which were conclusively enquired into and determined by the Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel appeared to be oblivious of the fact that an appeal before the High Court lay on a question of law alone and factual controversy could not be gone into by the said Court as well as this Court in the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. We are, therefore, not inclined to reappraise the facts of the case. Suffice it to say, the petitioners, who were legally bound to act in aid of the verdict rendered by this Court, which was eminently binding on them, did not care to carry out fresh analysis of the goods in presence of the respondent in a transparent manner. They are thus, in our view, not entitled to the exercise of discretion in their favour, more particularly when factual controversies can neither be raised nor adjudicated upon by this Court. We are not impressed by the argument that there are no suitable arrangements of laboratory test in respect of the disputed item as directed by this Court.
5. At any rate, since no question of law has been raised before us, we are reluctant to observe that no ground is made out for interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in its appellate Jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.