Find a Lawyer

UNITED LEATHER TANNERY (PVT.) LTD. BHIMBER, AZAD KASHMIR versus CUSTOMS, CENTRAL.EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ISLAMABAD BENCH

Section 156 (1) (10A) (90) section RO 500 (I) / 84, dated 14 6 1984 section RO 490 (I) / 85, dated 23 5 1985 section RO 480 (I) / 88, Date 26 6 1988 Section R939 (I) / 89, Dated 279 1989 and Section RO 611 (I) / 89 Dated 12 6 1989 Importer of Machinery Import duty-free and tax section R500 (I) by Appellant 84/84 under section 146 of 1984, which was applicable to certain areas and to promote industrial development in certain areas, then the machinery mentioned by the appellant against the provisions of section R500 (1) / 84. Removing B to B removal to S removal. 14 6 1984 The appellate tribunal had obtained the required jurisdiction to file legal proceedings against the appellant by verifying the former customs order of the collector to act against the appellant because the questioning machinery was unnecessarily Appellant was removed for space on. In fact, S \ and the same place was seized and recovered. S the appellant believes that the collector at this place had done the 'S nn. OT had the necessary jurisdiction to proceed against it. I was repulsed. The record shows that the appellant postponed the action before the collector and thus it was clear that the appellant was aware of it and deliberately avoided joining it during all these proceedings. ? As a result of the confiscation and recovery of machinery, a criminal case was also instituted against the appellant, in which the appellant was declared superior by the court of competent jurisdiction and the appellant made himself deliberate. Cannot allow premiums to be charged. Appellant contends that by default immigration advocate from Upper Dir lawyer