COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE versus PAKISTAN PULP PAPER AND BOARD MAKERS ASSOCIATION
Section 3 (4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, 45 and 48 of the Central Excise Act (I of 1944), Section 3 (5) of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Obligations, the return of surveillance clearance procedure dispute production, the constitutional application regarding the implementation of the capability procedures and supervision clearance procedure approved by the Federal Government Committee were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court verdict was upheld. Section 3 of the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972 raised the objection to the validity of the intra-court appeal where the constitution could not be presented to any higher authority in the petition, the intra-court appeal could remain and the provisions of section 3 Under the ban. 2) The Law Reform Ordinance did not draw attention to the 1972, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the authorities not to demand advertisement. Temporary dues and penalties were imposed from the respondents approved by the High Court under the constitutional jurisdiction and the same allowed intra-court appeal.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
