This judgment shall decide I. C. A. No,645 (in W.P. No,10626 of 2001), I.C.A. No,646 of 2001 (in W.P.
No,11046 of 2001), I.C.A No,647 of 2001 (W.P.No,11288 of 2001), I.C.A.No,688 of 2001 (in W.P. No,12170 of 2001), I.C.A. No,689 of 2001 (in W.P. No,12171 of 2001). I.C.A. No,721 of 2001 (in W.P. No,14131 of2001), I.C.A.
No,814 of 2001 (in W.P. No, 16236 of 2001), 1.C.A. No,815 of 2001 (in W.P. No, 16235 of 2001) and I.C.A. No, 791 of 2001 (in W.P. No, 15377 of 2001), as common points are involved.
2. The appellants are manufacturing concerns and claim the benefit of S.R.O. No7962 (1). dated 12- 9-1990 whereby subject to conditions stated therein exemption was granted from payment of the customs duties, sales tax and other surcharges mentioned therein leviable and chargeable under the laws mentioned in the said Notification. This Notification was later amended vide a Notification No,S.R.O.423(I), dated 13-6-1997. This later Notification was superseded by S.R.O. No,554(1), dated 12-6-1998. The effect is that subject to the conditions noted in the said Notification such machinery or spares as are not manufactured locally imported for setting up a manufacturing unit or for the expansion, balancing or modernization and replacement of existing unit in bond, shall be exempted from payment of the customs duties and the sale tax.
3. The respondents felt aggrieved of the refusal of the appellant's officers to clear the spares imported by them, in the light of a letter issued by the Central Board of Revenue on 8-5-2001 opining that " maintenance spares/consumable parts" are not eligible for the benefit of S.R.O.
No,554(I), dated 12-6-1998. The writ petitions, out of which these I.C.As. have arisen, were accordingly tiled and have been allowed by the learned Single Judges in Chamber of this Court vide impugned judgments.
4. Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate for the appellant contends that the letter referred to in the impugned letter dated 8-5-2001 throws some light on the said opinion of the Board which according to the learned counsel ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judges. This letter is dated 3-4-2001 and expresses the opinion of the Collector of Customs that the said maintenance spares/consumable parts would not be covered by the exemption granted under the said Notification dated 12-6-1998. The distinction was sought to be drawn with reference to S.R.O. No,279(I). dated 2-4-1994 which distinguishes spares and maintenance parts. Reference has also been made to the C.G.O. 8 of 1995. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these cases, on the other hand, contend that the matter involves interpretation of the said S.R.O. which has to be made in the process of adjudication by the hierarchy of the officers/authorities dealing with the original and appellate matters respectively and that the C.B.R. has no lawful authority to interpret the same in vacuum. Reliance is placed on the case of Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. the Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others (1993 SCM R 1232).
If has further been argued that in any case the document is to be interpreted as a whole and if upon proper interpretation- in the course of adjudication the respondents are found entitled to the benefit of the same, they are to be awarded the same notwithstanding the said opinion of the C.B.R.
5. We have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in these cases is concerned, we feel no hesitation in stating that the same is without any force. The said S.R.O. No,554(I), dated 12-6-1998 clearly lays down the parameters within which the exemption stands granted. The conditions for the entitlement to exemption are also stated therein. There is no classification of the machinery or the spares the import whereof is to enjoy the said exemption. What is important is the condition of absence of local manufacture and the purpose for which the machinery and spares are to be imported subject to the performance of the conditions laid down in the S.R.O. by the importers. If it is to be found that the machinery or the spares have been imported for the purpose mentioned in the S.R.O. and are not locally manufactured, to our mind there is to be no hurdle in the way of the importers to enjoy the exemption granted under the said S.R.O. The law does not cater for any attempt on the part of the respondents to curtail or for that matter to enhance the operation of the S.R.O. by means of executive order or formulation of an opinion by an executive authority, Such a process can only be undertaken by amendment of S.R.O. in the manner prescribed by law. which of course is not the case here.
6. We have also noted that the learned Single Judge in their respective impugned judgments have seen to it that the exemption is enjoyed by the importers within the four corners of the said Notification and upon fulfilment of all the conditions thereof and not otherwise. These I.C.As: are without any force and are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties A to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.