Find a Lawyer

PAKCOM LTD., ISLAMABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 Section 12A & 3 Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act (IX of 1972), First Schedule, Article 34 (a) Section RO 455 (I) / 96, Dated 13 6 1996 Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 10 and 96Z Department of Foreign Affairs (Protocol Division) Letter No. P (3) II / 8/99, dated 12 10 1999 Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 XXV 2000), Section 9 Expressing a sense of duty and not collecting Complainant / Reviewer to receive Central Excise Duty on telecommunication service as demanded by diplomatic missions, UN agencies and other international organizations. Not recognizing all the failure of the plaintiff, the Department did not explicitly state that the complainant felt the obligation and there was not much difference. Identifying and not collecting duty and not making sense at all. In the first case, if duty is realized whether it is necessary to submit it to the public exchequer irrespective of the legal limit. Ion provided under R10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the limit provided under R10 of the Central Excise Rules was not realized, will be attracted towards 1944 regarding the receipt and deposit of the notice. I was not clear and there was nothing. The notice alleges that any provision of R10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 should be attracted, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended to the Collector (Adj) whether the complainant realized the Central Excise Duty. If so, to what extent? If the answer to the first question was in the affirmative, then the known amount should be deposited by the complainant and if duty is not realized criminal advocate from Chashma lawyer