COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF EXPORTS VS ASCO INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., 2018 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 700 (2017)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 194-A---Appeal by officer of customs---Scope, limitation and procedure---Officer of customs, could prefer appeal against an order passed by the officer of customs not below the rank of Additional Collector, with due authority executed in writing---Appeal so drafted/presented should be accompanied by fee of one thousand rupees---In the present case, no fee challan confirming deposit of one thousand rupees on account of the appellant was available---Appeal was presented in the name of Assistant Collector of Customs, MCC Export, who was not appellant---Said vital lapse, rendered the appeal not validly filed and was infructuous---Said deficiency could not be cured in the absence of availability enabling subsection in S.194-A or in other provisions of Customs Act, 1969---If the law had prescribed method for doing a thing in a particular manner, such provision of law was to be followed in letter and spirit and achieving and attaining the object of performing or doing of a thing in a manner other than provided by law, would not be permitted---Section 194-A of Customs Act, 1969, prescribed the time of 60 days within which an appeal was to be filed from the date on which the decision or order sought to be appealed against was communicated to the Collector---Appeal in the case had not been filed in accordance with law and there was contravention and violation of the mandatory provision of law---Said appeal was nothing, but nullity having no legal existence---Filing of appeal after lapse of 60 days from the date of which the order under S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969 was served on Collector, appeal would be barred by time---Appeal not validly and legally filed, was not maintainable under law---Appeal was filed despite non-availability of any ground as validated in the grounds given in memo of appeal, having no substance being of stereotypical and general nature---Appellant had urged that the order passed by Collector of Customs be overturned in accordance with its wishes and on inapt interpretation of the phrase "input goods"---Appeal was not maintainable in terms of provision of S.194-A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 being without merit and substance which was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 3-DD, 26-A, 32(3A)---SRO No.500(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009---Audit---Power to frame contravention report---Sections 26-A & 32(3-A) of the Customs Act, 1969 had been inserted in the Act after creation of Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit through insertion of S.3-DD in the Act; officials of which were delegated powers under different provisions of said Act, including Ss.26-A & 32(3-A), through S.R.O. No.500(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009---Officials of the Directorate of Post Clearance Audit were empowered to conduct audit of the goods declarations of the importer; post clearance and upon finding any discrepancy or misdeclaration were empowered to issue audit observation to the importer for justification---If the importer failed to justify the pointed out discrepancy/misdeclaration, the Director of Post Clearance Audit was empowered to frame contravention report under the provision of S.32(3-A) of the Customs Act, 1969 and forward the same to the respective-Collector of Customs, (Adjudication) for commencing proceedings---In the present case, officials of customs conducted the audit under S.26-A and prepared contravention report under S.32(3-A), while usurping the powers of the Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit, which was not permitted under law---Appellate Tribunal observed that any such act, if committed, had to be discouraged in the beginning because, if allowed, it would create anarchy and compromise the independence of the different organs of the Revenue Division, empowered to act and operate within the specific sphere without any interference---Customs officials, in circumstances, had acted without power/jurisdiction, rendering the conduction of audit, preparation of contravention report, ab initio void and of no legal effect.

Major Syed Walayat Shah v. Muzaffar Khan and 2 others PLD 1971 SC 184; Omer and Company v. Controller of Customs, (Valuation): 1992 ALD 449 (1) Karachi AAA, Steel Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise Collectorate of Sales Tax 2004 PTD 624; Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Buksh and others PLD 1976 SC 514; Land Acquisition Collector, Noshehra and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others PLD 2001 SC 514; Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd, Karachi v. Collector of Customs, Karachi 2006 PTD 2237; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1996 ; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 832; All Pakistan Newspaper Society v. FOP PLD 2004 SC 600 and Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd., v. FOP PLD 2005 SC 842 ref.

(c) Interpretation of statutes---

----Taxing statute---Definition or phrase in a statute and notification had to be interpreted in liberal and rationale manner for achieving the object---Rules were to be used as "stepping stones" instead of "stumbling blocks" and they could not be applied to harass the taxpayer on the basis of technicalities instead of advancing the purpose for which they were framed.

Messrs Nishat Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise Circle-II PLD 1989 SC 222 and Ayesha Steel Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2011 PTD 569 ref.

Ghulam Yasin for Appellant.

Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th February, 2017.

ORDER

TAHIR ZIA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II).---Through this order, I intend to dispose off appeal No. K-1732/2016 directed against the Order-in-Original No.186-2015-16 dated 30.06.2016 passed by Collector of Customs, Adjudication-II, Customs House, Karachi.

2.Brief, facts of the case are that Messrs ASCO International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi (here-in-after to be referred as respondent No.1) is a manufacturing unit and was granted license No. PWL-11/2008 on 27.11.2008, under Rule 3(2) of S.R.O. 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008, (here-in-after to be referred as SRO) which they are entitled to import machinery accessories and raw material for setting up or modernizing the unit for manufacturing of the goods from the imported raw material for export free of duty and taxes upon submission of post dated cheques and indemnity bonds equivalent to leviable duty and taxes on the goods imported for home consumption through Goods Declaration (here-in-after to be referred as GD) filed under the provision of section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, (here-in-after to be referred as Act) and Rule 433 of Sub-Chapter III of Chapter XXI of Customs Rules, 2001(here-in-after to be referred as Rules), subject to their return upon submission of Goods Declaration of Export ((here-in-after to be referred as GDE) confirming consumption of the raw material in the exported goods and in case of non utilization encashment of the cheques, in addition to proceeding for contravention of the provision of the Act and the conditions of SRO. The appellant upon application from the respondent No. 1 allowed import of "Lubricant Oil" as input goods for using for lubricating the knitting machines, needles shanks, and Analysis Cards against each GD was also approved to the extent of quantum of use by the appellant. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 imported that and after consuming in the knitting of the fabric for making/manufacturing of exported goods from the knitting machines, wherein the oil was used for lubrication of the needles of machines so that those should not break during the process of knitting and fabric so obtained be spot free, submitted respective GDE with the subordinate of appellant, who after verification about the utilization of the lubricant oil released the post dated cheques and indemnity bonds after cancellation.

3.The subordinate of appellant conducted audit carried out under the provision of section 26A of the Act of the unit of the respondent No.1 and found that the lubricating oil imported under PCT 2710.1210-9900 for manufacture of knitted garments from the knitting machine is infact utilized for lubrication of needle knitting cam (tooth) needle shanks to reduce friction of needle scam and shanks in knitting process, use of Vickers spotless CN 22 Oil was preferred by the unit to other lubricating oil due to it characteristics of being easily removable when spotted from the knitted fabric. It was therefore, opined that lubricating oil was being used as consumable which does not add value in the knitted garments and is not covered under the definition of input goods specified in Rule 2(1)(f) or capital goods in terms of Rule 10(1)(e) of SRO and thus the same stand not admissible for duty and taxes free import under the SRO. Resultant, the respondent No. 1 imported the impugned lubricating oil through 8 GD's between 11.09.2009 to 16.04.2015 without lawful authority in the absence of entitlement and thus an audit observation was served on respondent No.1 for justification and for payment of duty and taxes of Rs.4,298,985.00, reply to audit observation was submitted, which fail to find acceptance of the subordinates of the appellant. Contravention was framed with the allegation that since the lubricating oil stands ousted from the definition of "input or capital goods and is not covered under the aforesaid rules of the SRO, this act of the respondent No. 1 is instrumental in non-payment of leviable duty and taxes on the goods imported for home consumption, through which lubricating oil should had been imported by the respondent No. 1 instead of importing under the license of regime of Export Oriented Unit, through the said act the respondent No. 1 deprived the exchequer from the revenue of Rs.4,298,985.00 and thus contravened the provision of sections 19, 32(1)(2), 32(3A) of the Act, section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 punishable under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and forwarded that to the appellant, who after giving his assent forwarded it to respondent No. 2, who issued show-cause notice dated 26.02.2016 to the respondent No. 1, who submitted reply, denying the charges on which the appellant subordinate submitted comments, consequent to which consultant of the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 04.05.2016 submitted addendum to the reply to the show-cause notice, which was provided to the subordinate of the appellant, who submitted comments on which consultant vide letter dated 25.05.2016, submitted rebuttal, on which the appellant subordinate submitted additional parawise comments. Consequent to which the respondent No. 2 forwarded letter dated 08.06.2016, to appellant for clarification of the formed opinion in regards to the definition of Input Goods, verbatim of which is reproduced here-in-under:

GOVERNMENT OF PAKSITAN

COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION-II)

11TH FLOOR, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI

No. Adj-II. Coll.SCN- 188/MCC-EXP-2008/MFG.BOND/ASCO/2016Dated 08.06.2016

Collector,

Model Customs Collectorate of Exports,

3rd Floor, Custom House, Karachi.

Subject:HEARING IN SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO. ADJ-II. COLL. SCN-188/MCC-EXP-2008 / MFG.BOND / ASCO-INT/ 2016 AGAINST M/S. ASCO INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD.

Kindly refer to the hearing of the case held on 06.06.2016 in the subject SCN.

2. While arguing the case the Departmental Representation has taken the stand that although the definiiton of "Input Goods" as defined under clause (f) of Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 2 of S.R.O. 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008 includes "all goods .. used in the manufacture of output goods as approved by the Collector in the analysis card" yet the input goods in the subject case i.e. lubricating oil was approved by the Collector in the analysis card "wrongly/ mistakenly and hence inadmissible. This position has not been stated in the Contravention Report and may have consequences while disposing off the case. It is therefore, requested that viewpoint of the Departmental Representative may be endorsed or otherwise so that the case may be decided in the light of stated positions. The next date of hearing in this case has been fixed on 16.06.2016.

Sd/-

(Ch. Muhammad Javaid)

Collector

Since no endorsement to the stance of the representative of the appellant was received by the respondent No. 2 despite lapse of more than 3 weeks, he passed order dated 30.06.2016 vacated the show-cause notice wile holding that the charge leveled in the show-cause notice are not established on the basis of opinion formed in paras 22 and 23, which read as follows:--

22. Bare perusal of Rule 2(1)(f) of SRO 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008, which defined the term Input Goods and states Input Goods means all goods whether imported or procured locally by an Export Oriented Unit from the Tariff area such as raw material accessories, sub-components, component, assembly sub-assemblies used in the manufacturing of output goods as approved by the Collector in the Analysis Card. It shows that there are two basic conditions for any goods to qualify as Input Goods (i) the goods must be used in the manufacturing of output goods and (ii) these must be approved by the Collector in the Analysis Card. Now these goods may be raw material, accessories, sub-components, components, assemblies, and sub-assemblies or any other goods but if these meet the two conditions mentioned above then these would be considered as input goods under S.R.O. 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008, the definition of Input Goods as noted earlier never required that the input goods must add value to the output goods or these should not be consumable and these must be some of the raw material as fixation of such a condition to the definition of Input Goods would mean imposing a condition neither intended by the law maker or required under law. The word mentioned is "used in the manufacture of out goods" without pre-fixing condition that how these would be used, and it has been left for Collector to finally decide in the Analysis Card that what goods will be allowed concession as input goods under S.R.O. 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008. There may be mistake in adding the wrong goods as Input Goods but in that scenario the Analysis Card must be immediately amended to rectify such mistake. It is an admitted fact that the lubricant oil Vickers spotless C.N. 22 is used in the machine for manufacturing of output goods and it has also been approved by the Collector in the analysis Card which had not been amended by the Model Customs Collectorate of (Export), Karachi till to-date for disallowing the same on the strength of Analysis Card for future import. Therefore, by fulfilling both the condition as mentioned above the lubricated oil certainly falls within the definition of input goods as defined in Rule 2(1)(f) of S.R.O. 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008 and is entitled for concession under the SRO.

23. Moreover, the respondent has been alleged with the violation of Sections 32(1), 32(2) and 32(3A) which are attracted in case of misdeclaration or submission of untrue documents. However, in this case it has been established that where such a misdeclaration has been committed by the unite. It has imported exactly the same goods which has been approved by the Collector through the Analysis Card and the goods were imported after the unit was allowed import. Therefore, invoking all these sections is totally irrelevant and GD's contain only those goods which were approved by the Department.

4.The appellant filed the appeal on the basis of grounds enumerated therein. No cross objection under subsection (4) of section 194A has been filed within the stipulated period of 30 days by the respondent No. 1, instead the consultants/advocate during the course of hearing replied upon para 9 para 10 and para 12 and para 14 of the order dated 30.06.2016 and stated further that the appeal is not maintainable in terms of sub section (6) of section 194A of the Customs Act, 1969, which express that every appeal filed under section 194A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 before the Customs Appellate Tribunal be accompanied by a fee of Rupees One thousand only, which is not available in the appeal. Instead of Assistant Collector of Customs, M.C.C. Export, Karachi, who is not appellant. The lapse rendered the appeal not validly filed within the stipulated period of 60 days in terms of subsection (3) ibid, therefore, not maintainable.

5.Rival parties heard and case record perused along with the citations relied upon.

6.The subject appeal can be disposed off simply on the basis of maintainability and jurisdiction of conducting audit by the subordinate of appellant under the provision of section 26A and thereafter framing contravention report in terms of the provision of section 32(3A) of the Act. I will dilate upon first on the question of maintainability and for reaching at a just decision it is beneficial to reproduce verbatim of section 194A of the Customs Act, 1969.

"194A- Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal:---(1) Any person or an officer of Customs aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such orders:-

(a)A decision or order passed by an officer of Customs not below the rank of Additional Collector under section 179.

(ab)An order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under section 193;

(c)An order passed under section 193, as it stood immediately before appointed day;

(d)An order passed by the Board or the Collector of Customs under section 195

(e)An order passed in revision by the director General Customs Valuation under section 25D, provided that such appeal shall be heard by a Special Bench consisting of one Technical Member and one Judicial Member.

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal in respect of an order referred to in subsection (1) where --

(i) -------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) -----------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Where the Board or Collector of Customs by an order passed by the Collector Appeals, it or as the case may be, he may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Such appeal shall be preferred by an officer, not below the rank of Assistant Collector of Assistant Director so authorized in writing by the Board or the Collector or the Director as the case may be.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within 60 days from the date on which decision or the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Board or the Collector of Customs, or as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal.

(4) On receipt of notice that an appeal has been preferred under this Section, the party against whom appeal has been preferred may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, file within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, a memorandum of cross-objections verified in such a manner as may be specified by the Rules made in this behalf against any part of the order appealed against and such memorandum shall be disposed off by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in subsection (3).

(5) --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by the Rules made in this behalf and shall, accept in the case of a memorandum of cross-objection referred to in subsection (4), be accompanied by a fee of one thousand rupees.

(7) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon bare reading of subsection (1) of section 194A of the Act, it is clear that an officer of Customs can prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Officer of Customs not below the rank of Additional Collector, with due authority executed in writing as expressed in subsection (2) and the appeal so drafted/presented should be accompanied by a fee of one thousand rupees as enunciated in sub-section (6). In the instant case no fee challan confirming deposit of one thousand rupees on account of the appellant is available, instead in the name of Assistant Collector of Customs, MCC Export, Karachi, who is not an appellant as evident from the file of appeal and of the connected. This vital lapse renders the appeal not validly filed and therefore, in-fructuous. This deficiency could not be cured in the absence of availability of enabling subsection in section 194A or any other section in the Act. It is settled proposition of law that if the law had prescribed method for doing a thing in a particular manner, such provision of law is to be followed in letter and spirit and achieving and attaining the objective of performing or doing of a thing in a manner other than provided by law would not be permitted. Section 194A of the Act prescribes the time limit of 60 days within which an appeal is to be filed from the date on which the decision or order sought to be appeal against is communicated to the Collector. This appeal has not been filed in accordance with law and there was contravention and violation of the mandatory provision of law. Resultant, this appeal is nothing but nullity having no legal existence. Filing of the appeal after lapse of 60 days from the date of which the order under section 179 of the Act was served on Collector, the appeal will be barred by time. It would be deem to have been properly filed when annexed with Challan of one thousand rupees, deposited in the National Bank of Pakistan by the appellant, which is not available. Rendering the appeal not validly and legally filed and therefore, is not maintainable under law. I would like to express my extreme dissatisfaction, discontentment and displeasure on the manner in which officer of the Customs Department involved in filing appeal, least took due care, rather act in most negligent, careless, casual and imprudent manner despite of clear dictates of law.

7.Notwithstanding, to the observation made here-in-above the reference made in the contravention report/show-cause notice and order-in-original to sections 26A and 32(3A) of the Act is out of proportion as invoking of the said section also render the conduction of audit and framing of contravention report without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The section 26A and section 32(3A) of the Act have been inserted in the Act after creating of Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit through insertion of section 3DD in the Act and official of which were delegated power under the different section of the Act including 26A and 32(3A) through S.R.O. 500(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 and Official of the Directorate of Post Clearance Audit are empowered to conduct audit of the GD's of the importer Post Clearance and upon finding any discrepancy or misdeclaration are empowered to issue audit observation to the importer for justification. In case the importer failed to justify the pointed out discrepancy/misdeclaration, the Director of Post Clearance Audit is empowered to frame contravention report under the provision of section 32(3A) of the Act and forward that to the respective Collector of Customs, Adjudication for commencing adjudication proceedings. In the instant case of the appellant subordinates conducted audit under section 26A and prepared contravention report under the provision of section 32(3A) while usurping the powers of the Officer of Directorate General of Post Clearance Audit, which is not permitted under law. Any such act if committed has to be discouraged in the beginning because if allowed, it will create anarchy and compromise the independence of the different organs of the Revenue Division, empowered to act and operate within the specific sphere without any interference. I am therefore of the irresistible considered opinion that the appellant subordinates acted without power/jurisdiction, rendering the conduction of audit, preparation of contravention report are ab-initio, void and as such of no legal effect. Major Syed Walayat Shah v. Muzaffar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1971 SC 184), Omer and Company v. Controller of Customs, (Valuation): (1992 ALD 449 (1) Karachi AAA Steel Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise Collectorate of Sales Tax (2004 PTD 624), PLD 1976 Supreme Court 514 Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Buksh and others and PLD 2001 Supreme Court 514 Land Acquisition Collector, Noshehra and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others, 2006 PTD 2237 Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd, Karachi v. Collector of Customs, Karachi, 2009 PTD (Trib) 1996 and 2010 PTD (Trib.) 832, PLD 2004 Supreme Court 600 All Pakistan Newspaper Society v. FOP, PLD 2005 Supreme Court 842 Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd., v. FOP.

8.Reverting back to the core issue of the case that as to whether imported Vickers Spotless CN22 Oil falls within the ambit of input goods or not as defined in Rule 2(1)(f) of SRO . Although the issue has been laid to rest through well worded observation in para 22 of the order by the respondent No. 2 and no substance or reasoning were available with the appellant or his subordinate to dispute the rationale and just interpretation adduced by the respondent No. 2. The appellant filed the subject appeal despite non availability of any valid ground, validated from the grounds given in memo. of appeal having no substance being of stereotypical and general nature and desired that the order passed by respondent No. 2 be overturned in accordance with their wishes and inapt interpretation of the phrase "Input Goods" defined in Rule 2(i)(f)/ essence and spirit of SRO and the intention of the legislature. It is settled principle of law that the definition of phrase available in statute and SRO has to be interpreted in liberal and rationale manner for achieving the object as Rules are to be used as "stepping stones" instead of "stumbling blocks" and they may also not to be employed to harass the taxpayer on the basis of technicalities instead of advancing the purpose for which they are framed as held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in its reported judgment PLD 1989 Supreme Court 222 in the case of Messrs Nishat Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise Circle-II. I am in full agreement with the adopted definition of the word "Input Goods" by the respondent No. 2 in its order that "It shows that there are two basic conditions for any goods to qualify as Input Goods (i) the goods must be used in the manufacturing of output goods and (ii) these must be approved by the Collector in the Analysis Card. Now these goods may be raw material, accessories, sub-components, components, assemblies, and sub-assemblies or any other goods but if these meet the two conditions mentioned above then these would be considered as input goods under SRO 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008. The definition of Input Goods as noted earlier never required that the input goods must add value to the output goods or these should not be consumable and these must be some of the raw material as fixation of such a condition to the definition of Input Goods would mean imposing a condition neither intended by the law maker or required under law. The word mentioned is "used in the manufacture of out goods" without pre-fixing condition that how these would be used, and it has been left for Collector to finally decide in the Analysis Card that what goods will be allowed concession as input goods under SRO 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008". Notwithstanding, for further crystallizing the definition of "Input goods" I am indebted to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan 2003 PTD 1986 Messrs D.G. Khan Cement Company, Ltd v. Deputy Collector of Customs Appraisement-Group-VII, Customs House, Karachi and 2011 PTD 569 Ayesha Steel Mills Ltd v. FOP, wherein real estate and including lands and building and pre-fabricated factory building and shed were termed to be falling within the definition of "Plant and Equipment/Machinery" despite having different literal meanings while holding that "the said word Plant even encompasses real state and include lands and building only subject to the qualification that while ground occupied by factory or mill or even that part or joining the factory and use for office or warehouses may be treated as part of plant but a large tract of land many miles from the plant which is used for raising raw material for the factory ordinarily will not be considered a part of the plant" and "pre-fabricated factory building and shed imported by the petitioner falls within the definition of Plant, equipment/machinery" In 2016 SCMR 1448 Messrs D.G Khan Cement Co., Ltd. v. Collector of Customs again held that off highway dump truck if used in industrial process of the cement company and their utility found an integral function in the manufacturing of the cement, direct nexus existed between the use off highway dump truck at the quarry of the cement manufacturing factory with its industrial process. Such nexus brought the off way highway truck within the definition of plant". In consideration of the liberal/rationale and legal interpretation adopted in the aforesaid judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, I hold that the "Input Goods" are not restricted to the item specified in Rule 2(1)(f) of the SRO, rather all raw material, whether from those are nothing can be manufactured but are used ancillary to the manufacturing process, whether that is in the shape of oil or lubricant or Vicker Spotless CN 22 Oil imported in the Export Oriented Unit by the respondent No. 1 after due approval by the appellant of that and of Analysis Card for consumption falls without any exception within the definition of input goods, no illegality has been committed by the respondent No. 1 nor by the appellant in importing allowing Vickers Spotless CN 22 Oil used for lubricating the needle knitting cam (tooth) needle shanks of knitting machine in the past and if imported in future, for which permission should be granted to them, in addition to issuance of Analysis Card.

9.In view of foregoing, the appeal is not maintainable in terms of the provision of section 194A(1) of the Act and even without merit and substance. Therefore fails the judicial scrutiny as such stands dismissed. Order accordingly.

HBT/20/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.