Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 Section 3 Central Excise Rules, 1944, R 10 Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 9 Section R4545 (I) / 96, Dated 13 6 1996 CBR Letter C No. 1 (3) CEB / 99 HISTORY 7 1 In 2002, after supplying allowance to excise duty to a low supplier of tin (metal) containers to wheat mills, it was estimated that the ghee mills had Waiver of excise duty on metal containers used is being invalidated. The melting point of the vegetable curd was much higher than 10 ? C and the law division also made it clear that duty was imposed. According to the Law Division, misinterpretation was made on Section R455 (I) / 96, dated 13 6 1996. Wrongly considered a small tax and an attempt was made to retrieve it from the tin containers supplied to the vegetable ghee mills, it was also clear that the amendment to La Division 18 2001 6 2001 was considered. The only remedy was often through a precautionary measure. As the Central Board of Revenue accepted the opinion of the Law Division and circulated its offices on behalf of the present Division, it appears that recovery proceedings against the complainant will no longer be the basis, however the matter has been decided. Will do according to Therefore, it was not necessary to ask whether the complainant was responsible for paying the minor duties or with the mills, accordingly the complaints were resolved by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. law websites from Ranipur lawyer