This? ?petition? ?under? ?Article? ?199? ?of? ?the? ?Constitution? ?of? ?Islamic? ?Republic? ?of? ?Pakistan,? ?1973? ?has? ?been? ?filed? ?by? ?Adil? ?Beverage? ?Company? ?(Pvt.)? ?Limited? ?which? ?is? ?manufacturer? ?of? ?foreign? ?brands,? ?soft? ?drinks.? ?The? ?Central? ?Board? ?of? ?Revenue? ?by? ?virtue? ?of? ?Notification? ?bearing? ?No.? ?338(K)/66,? ?dated? ?7? ?4? ?1966? ?in? ?purported? ?exercise? ?of? ?its? ?powers? ?under? ?rule? ?53? ?of? ?the? ?Central? ?Excise? ?Rules,? ?1944? ?specified? ?that? ?all? ?manufacturers? ?shall? ?maintain? ?daily? ?stock? ?account? ?of? ?the? ?raw? ?material.? ?Underneath? ?the? ?notification,? ?one? ?of? ?the? ?notes? ?given? ?require,? ?a? ?separate? ?record? ?to? ?be? ?maintained? ?of? ?bottles,? ?'crown? ?corks? ?and? ?other? ?raw? ?material.

2.? ?The? ?case? ?of? ?the? ?petitioner? ?is? ?that? ?since? ?the? ?crown? ?corks? ?is? ?not? ?raw? ?material? ?for? ?production? ?of? ?irriated? ?water? ?but? ?is? ?a? ?packing? ?material,? ?the? ?Central? ?Board? ?of? ?Revenue? ?had? ?no? ?jurisdiction? ?to? ?require? ?the? ?petitioner? ?to? ?maintain? ?a? ?register? ?relating? ?to? ?crown? ?cork.

3.? ?Mr.? ?Zaheer? ?Ahmad? ?Khan,? ?learned? ?counsel? ?for? ?the? ?petitioner? ?has? ?re? ?iterated? ?that? ?crown? ?cork? ?is? ?a? ?part? ?of? ?packing? ?material? ?and? ?not? ?raw? ?material? ?and? ?as? ?such? ?the? ?petitioner? ?was? ?under? ?no? ?obligation? ?to? ?keep? ?the? ?record? ?of? ?consumption? ?of? ?crown? ?cork? ?prior? ?to? ?3? ?7? ?1985? ?when? ?rule? ?53? ?B? ?Was? ?added? ?under? ?which? ?every.? ?manufacturer? ?was? ?required? ?to? ?maintain? ?daily? ?stock? ?account? ?of? ?raw? ?material? ?also.

4.? ?Sh.? ?Shahid? ?Waheed,? ?the? ?respondents? ?learned? ?counsel? ?has? ?relied? ?upon? ?the? ?judgment? ?of? ?this? ?Court? ?reported? ?as? ?M/s.? ?Shahi? ?Bottlers? ?Ltd.,? ?Lahore? ?v.? ?Government? ?of? ?Pakistan? ?and? ?others? ?(PLD? ?1976? ?Lah.? ?1584)? ?to? ?contend? ?that? ?crown? ?cork? ?is? ?part? ?of? ?raw? ?material.

?5.? ?Having? ?heard? ?the? ?learned? ?counsel? ?for? ?the? ?parties? ?and? ?considered? ?the? ?arguments? ?addressed? ?at? ?the? ?Bar,? ?I? ?am? ?of? ?the? ?view? ?that? ?this? ?petition? ?is? ?bound? ?to? ?succeed.? ?A? ?bare? ?reading? ?of? ?rule? ?53? ?of? ?the? ?Central? ?Excise? ?Rules,? ?1944? ?shows? ?that? ?the? ?manufacturer? ?was? ?required? ?to? ?maintain? ?record? ?of? ?raw? ?material? ?and? ?not? ?of? ?packing? ?material.? ?The? ?contention? ?on? ?behalf? ?of? ?the? ?respondents? ?that? ?crown? ?cork? ?is? ?raw? ?material? ?is? ?fallacious? ?inasmuch? ?as? ?raw? ?material? ?is? ?something? ?out? ?of? ?which? ?another? ?product? ?is? ?produced? ?after? ?its? ?user.? ?It? ?cannot? ?be? ?denied? ?that? ?crown? ?cork? ?is? ?not? ?used? ?in? ?the? ?manufacturing? ?of? ?aerated? ?water? ?but? ?is? ?only? ?required? ?at? ?the? ?time? ?of? ?packing? ?of? ?bottles.? ?This? ?being? ?so,? ?the? ?petitioner? ?could? ?not? ?have? ?been? ?asked,? ?prior? ?to? ?the? ?amendment? ?in? ?rule? ?53? ?B? ?to? ?have? ?kept? ?record? ?of? ?crown? ?cork? ?which? ?was? ?erroneously,? ?treated? ?as? ?raw? ?material.? ?As? ?regards? ?the? ?reliance? ?of? ?the? ?learned? ?counsel? ?on? ?Shahi? ?Bottlers'? ?case? ?? ?(supra),? ?a? ?perusal? ?of? ?para.? ?10? ?of? ?the? ?judgment,? ?would? ?show? ?that? ?it? ?is? ?based? ?on? ?consent? ?of? ?the? ?parties? ?and? ?not? ?on? ?any? ?discussion? ?on? ?the? ?subject.
? ?
In? ?view? ?of? ?what? ?has? ?been? ?said? ?above,? ?this? ?petition? ?is? ?allowed? ?and? ?the? ?impugned? ?orders? ?passed? ?by? ?the? ?respondents? ?are? ?declared? ?to? ?be? ?without? ?any? ?lawful? ?authority? ?and? ?of? ?no? ?legal? ?effect.? ?No? ?order? ?as? ?to? ?costs.

Petition allowed.