Find a Lawyer

ASIM FABRIC (PVT.) LTD. versus CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), LAHORE

Bond Manufacturing License in the Customs Act 1969 Sections 56 (1), 32 and 156 (7) (l0A) Section RO No. 722 (1) l89, dated 10 7 1989, issued notice to the Collector on 23 12 1997 ? They have to demand why they should not be recovered from customs duty and other taxes levied on the machinery and initiate the prosecution under section 56 (1) of the Customs Act 1969. Was timely under 32. As per section 32 (3) of the Act, the Act attracted cases where the showcase notice was required to be issued within 6 months of the relevant date which in this case the license was canceled by the Collector in 3093 1993 and No conditions were specified. In Section RO 722 (1) / 69, Directive 10 7 was violated during the license collector's exemption in 1989, however, objections were dismissed on the basis that customs duty and other taxes were rejected by Section RO 962. (1) / 90 is conditionally exempt. Read with Section RO 722 (1) / 89 h subject to the condition that liabilities will be recovered if the beneficiary fails to meet the stipulated conditions in the notification within a period of 7 years. The Integrity Department has absolutely no legal or moral authority to issue show cause notices after such intervals. 4 years of license cancellation As soon as the collector discharges the license, the department will suspend its powers for non-compliance, error or mismanagement of the department for more than four years. Licensed licensees, who justified their understanding of the matter and identified the provisions of section 156 (1) (10A) of the Customs Act 1969, were not valid principles. property advocate from Jacobabad lawyer