Through this Constitutional Petition, Messrs Pakistan Services (Pvt.) Limited, owners of Pearl Continental Hotel assail the orders recorded by respondents 2 to 4 respectively, the Additional Secretary (Member Judicial), the Collector Customs and the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Salt Tax, Lahore.
2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging evasion of Central Excise Duty on the rooms booked on discount or complementary basis. In' reply the petitioner claimed that no excise duty had been evaded inasmu ch as it was duly paid on the rent actually received from different classes of customers. The charge of reduced rate was claimed on account of certain complaints of Customers. The Deputy Collector Sales Tax, however, refused to accept the defence and found that there has been a contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act as well as the Rules. It was found that the petitioner had paid Excise Duty at the discounted rates and not on the normal charges as contemplated in subsection (3) of section 4 of the Central Excise and Sales Act, 1944. Learned First Appellate Authority agreed. It was observed that in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, Central Excise Duty was leviable and collected on the amount which would have been charged for services and facilities though they may have been rendered or provided either free of charge or on concessional rates.
3. The respondent No,2 acting as Revisional Authority under section 36 of the Act maintained the order so recorded.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states and I will agree that learned Revisional Authority did not consider the facts of the case and instead disposed of the revision through a consolidated order in which the facts were discussed which were relevant to the three other revisions of .the present petitioner. All four revisions were tiled together before the revisional authority. In the three revisions facts were different while the 4th one was bases upon different facts. However, the learned Revisional Authority discussed and ruled upon the facts prevailing in other three appeals while disposing of the revisions. Factually the narration of facts given in the original order dated 31-3-1993 passed by respondent No,4 were never adverted to.
5. That being so, I will agree that the -disposal of the revision filed by the petitioner by a reference and on the basis of the facts prevailing in other three revisions was against law. The order of the Revisional Authority as far it relates to the order in original dated 31-3-1993 and the thirst appellate order dated 6-11-1993 is set aside.
6. Since in the meanwhile the revisional forum has been substituted by the Tribunal. the revision of the petitioner shall be deemed as a pending appeal before the learned Tribunal and decided in accordance with law after hearing the parties. In case the record of the previous revision petition is not available. a copy of the revision petition shall he entertained by the Tribunal as appeal under section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
7. Disposed of.