Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.7(316) CU/IB OF 2000(PB), DECIDED ON 28TH SEPTEMBER 2002. versus APPEAL NO.7(316) CU/IB OF 2000(PB), DECIDED ON 28TH SEPTEMBER 2002.

Sales Tax Act 1990 section 13, 2 (33) (39) (41), 6 and 31 Customs Act (IV of 1969), section 32 section R582 (I) / 98, dated 12 6 1998 section RO 561 (I) ) / 94, dated 9 6 1994 Exemption of machinery on local supply in 1994 machinery Appellant claimed exemption from the import of machinery on 1999 on the basis that the imported machinery was provided under section R588 (I) / 98 under 12 6 1998. The small exemption is exempt from the sales tax recovery. The waiver of immunity was not available because the appellant started trial production on 15 5 1994 and his production was exempt as per section RO 561 (I) / 94, since section RO 582 (1999). I) / 98, dated 12 6 1998, did not provide the benefit of producing exempt, exempt goods from machinery; it was not appropriate to impose a sales tax on the imported machinery. Appellant argued that Section R588 (I) / 98 dated 12 6 1998 exemption of sales tax on plant and machinery, by the power of any explanation, should be used for the manufacture of goods payable by the register. Individuals and machines were not immediately installed at the time of enrollment, so the term was used in the notification of immunity, which was used on and after 15 of 1999, when the appellants. The tax department had to produce taxable goods. The department requested that since the goods manufactured by the appellants were exempted till 14 1999, the machine The provisions imposed on the plaintiff were not entitled to the exemption benefits under Section 588 (I) / 98 Rule 12 6 1998. The provisions of section 30 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969 are read with its section 31A (1) and under section 6 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, the validity appellant has filed section RO 561 (I) / 94. Under 14 5 1999 immigration advocates email from Talhur lawyer