SANDOZ PAK LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
This review petition was filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously allowed the Government's appeal and set aside a High Court judgment in favor of the petitioner, Sandoz Pak Ltd. The underlying dispute concerned a demand for excise duty on a product manufactured by the petitioner, 'Leucophor', which the authorities sought to classify under Entry 04.03 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner challenged the demand, arguing it was an afterthought and legally invalid. The core legal question in the review was whether the previous Supreme Court judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the previous judgment had been rendered after extensive deliberation and consideration of the evidence, including distinguishing the current case from previous precedents regarding similar products like 'Tinopal'. Finding no error floating on the record, the Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the previous judgment was just and did not require modification.
- What is the standard for maintaining a review petition against a judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Does a failure to consider specific High Court judgments constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review?
- Can a review petition be used to re-argue the merits of a case already decided by the Supreme Court?
- Entry 04.03, 1st Schedule, Central Excise and Salt Act 1944
ORDER
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court, whereby Civil Appeal No,863 of 2000 filed by the respondent-Government was accepted and judgment dated 30-10-1999 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of instant review, petition are that the petitioner (respondent in Civil Appeal No, 863 of 2000) filed a Constitutional Petition No,D-514 of 1995 before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, challenging the orders dated 27-9-1989 and 8-3-1995, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs, Excise and Sales Tax, Karachi and Central Board of Revenue, respectively, demanding Rs,1,34,60,396 in lieu of excise duty from the petitioner. Through the Constitutional Petition, the petitioner had prayed that both these orders be declared contrary to law and of no legal effect and had sought declaration to the effect that "Leucophor" is not classifiable under Entry 04.03 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner is a company deals in manufacturing of a product called "Leucophor" and it was the case of the petitioner that the respondents demand was an afterthought and such belated demand had been raised after the goods had been cleared and sold.
3. It appears from the record that the learned High Court accept the Constitutional Petition of the petitioner by means of the judgment dated 30-10-1999, while relying upon its earlier judgment in Constitutional Petition No,D-865 of 1992, which judgment has been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 25-4-1997 passed in Civil Petition No,402-K of 1995.
4. However, feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 30-10-1999 passed by the learned High Court, the respondent-Government preferred appeal, by leave of this Court, which was allowed by means of the judgment under review dated 19-12-2005 and order dated 30-10-1999 passed by the learned High Court was set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the judgment under review has been passed by this Court without taking into consideration some of the judgments passed by the High Court of Sindh on the subject, therefore, the judgment under challenge needs to be reviewed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully perused the judgment under review as well as the available record. From perusal of record, it transpires that the judgment of this court, called in question through this review petition, has been passed after hearing the parties counsel at considerable length, while taking into consideration the evidence available on record. Through the judgment under review, this Court has also taken note of the judgment passed by the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No, D-865 of 1992 and came to the conclusion that in the said matter, product known as A 'Tinopal' was an 'Optical Bleaching Agent', 'Fluorescent Brightening Agent' and was not capable of dyeing whereas, in the instant case no such findings have been recorded by the 'laboratory in the test report, which accompanied the show-cause notice.
In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's counsel has failed to point out any error floating on record in the judgment under review, which being just does not call for any interference, therefore, this review petition is dismissed with costs.