Find a Lawyer

GUL BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD. versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-II, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, S.I.T.E. HYDERABAD

On the R 10 duty recovery notice, the small refundable rates were submitted by the categories of duty-charged installments and claimed adjustments in relation to the remaining demand, however, in the third quarter on the Department's insistence. The demand was paid by the estimator. No collusion was found between any person or any other person. Any fraud, whatever Assamisi did and if extra duty was not imposed by the Department's offices, was due to his ineligibility and consequently the limitation period was the Central Excise Rules 1944. Was specified in KR 10 (1). Within which the showcase notice was to be submitted for review, any notice of recovery exceeding the limit provided in R 10 was timely barred and excise duty could not be recovered / imposed beyond that period. The period of limitation provided in R 10 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which attracted the facts of the present case, was that the showcase notice and the demand arising thereafter were to be illegal, illegal and outlawed show cause notice and As a result, the High Court upheld the order on appeal immigration advocates phone number from Samma Satta lawyer