CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the imposition of penalties under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972. The core legal questions examined are whether a penalty under rule 5(3) of the said Rules follows as a matter of course regardless of abatement allowed by the Central Board of Revenue, and whether such penalty liability must be proportionate to the capacity duty for which abatement was not allowed while the main abatement claim remains pending finalization. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider these substantial questions of law regarding tax and excise duty penalties and directed security to be furnished.
- Whether penalty under rule 5(3) of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972 follows as a matter of course and irrespective of the extent of the abatement allowed by the Central Board of Revenue?
- Whether the liability to the penalty was dependent on, and had to be proportionate to the extent of capacity duty of which abatement was not allowed?
- Rule 5(3), Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules 1972
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J---Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, for examining the following questions of law:--
(1) Whether penalty under rule 5(3) of `Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972' follows as a matter of course and irrespective of the extent of the abatement allowed by the Central Board of Revenue? (Para. 17 of the High Court judgment).
(2) Whether in this case the liability to the penalty was not dependent on, and had to be proportionate to the extent of capacity duty of which abatement was not allowed? The main claim, i.e. Of abatement in capacity duty is said to be still awaiting finalization with the Central Board of Revenue.
2. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The payment is said to have been made.