' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This departmental appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, through Collector of Customs, Sambrial, District Sialkot, seek to assail the vires of an order recorded by the Cutoms, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 13-7-2001.
2. The respondent/assessee is running a manufacturing concerned at Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. On its request for import of material free from levy of customs duty as provided for vide S.R.O.
601(1)/93, dated 11-6-1983 the Survey and Rebate Department of the Revenue carried out a survey of their unit. After satisfying themselves of the availability of required ir house facilities to avail the concession, the appellant imported polyurethane varnish and copper rod etc. On import, however, the Revenue refused to grant the concession on the ground that the imported goods were being manufactured in Pakistan.
3. On their refusal the appellant approached this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction in Writ Petition No,2282 of 1991. Through an order, dated 27-5-1997 the concerned Collector, Sambrial was directed to decide the matter and provisionally release the imported goods. In the meanwhile, the matter was referred by the Collector to CBR recommending that either the said material be included in the list of articles manufactured in Pakistan or the appellants be allowed to import them under the aforesaid S.R.O. Dated 11-6-1983; while the matter was still pending in this Court, the Central Board of Revenue vide CGO No,1 of 1999 dated 3-2-1999 included the said material in the list of the goods manufactured in Pakistan. However, the issuance of that CGO did not change the fate of the assessee inasmuch as the Revenue insisted that imports made before the issuance of said CGO No,1 of 1999 dated 3-2-1999 were required to pay full duty and tax.
4. Aggrieved from the order the appellant successfully approached the learned Tribunal. A Division Bench thereof, by way of impugned order, held the view as under:-- "In this case, the CBR issued CGO No,1 of 1999 on 3-2-1999 including the goods in the list of the goods locally manufactured and ceasing to have the concessary benefits of S.R.O. 601(1) of 1983. It was fiscal measure of executive nature linked with statutory measure of the said notification and it could only have prospective effect but the learned Member, B.O.R. By the impugned order, erroneously applied it retrospectively w,e,f, 10-4-1996 till he passed the impugned order. In this case it applied from 3-2-1999 and all consignments of the goods in question imported by the appellants prior to this date were to be released and are directed to be released, to the appellants under concessary regime of S.R.O., 601(1)98 so far as customs duty and taxes leviable thereon are concerned."
5. After hearing the learned counsel at pre-admission stage, we are not persuaded that a question of law arises out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue attempts to make out a case that before the issuance of CGO No,1 of 1999, the Revenue Authorities were competent to make thereunder assessment, that in the given facts of a case if the material being imported by them was being manufactured in Pakistan. In the view of the learned counsel CGO No,1 of 1999 was rightly held to have no retrospective application. On the basis of public notice learned counsel seeks to persuade that material imported by the petitioner was being manufactured in Pakistan and therefore, it was not at all eligible to avail the concession given under S.R.O., dated 11- 6-1983.
6. Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand has submitted a copy of Notification No,S.R.O., 683(1)/99, dated 12-6-1999 whereby the aforesaid S.R.O., dated 11-6-1983 was amended.
The amendment was in the form of addition of an explanation. It was that for the purpose of notification the expression "not manufactured in Pakistan" shall mean the goods which are not included in the list of locally manufactured goods, specified in the General Order, issued by the Central Board of Revenue".
6. As said earlier, we are of the view that no question of law has arisen out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellants had challenged the order of CBR on the ground that the goods imported by them were not included in the CGO No,7 of 1994 which contained a list of goods manufactured in Pakistan. The explanation added even subsequently support their case. It will be seen that generally an explanation is retrospective in nature inasmuch as it seeks to explain and to remove a doubt existing in the mind of the public functionaries as well as the citizens. In re: Dreamland Cinema, Multan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore PLD 1977 Lah. 292 this Court reached a similar conclusion. The proper functioning of an explanation is either to make plain or elucidate a statutory provision. The Patna High Court in re: Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Suresh Mohan Thakur (1995 PTD 1027) expressed the view that an explanation only functions to explain the meaning and effect of the main provisions to which it is an explanation and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in it.
7. The explanation having become part of the S.R.O., dated 11-6-1983 while the matter was still pending adjudication the respondent was rightly held to be entitled to avail the concession.
8. No question of law having arisen out of the departmental appeal it shall be dismissed in limine.