APPEAL NO. 1359/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 6TH FEBRUARY, 2002. versus
Section 3B Central Excise Rules, 1944, R10 Goods consisting of partially compliant articles which have been raised in the case that the appellant under the goods supplied under it has made various charges in the appraisal value of the goods. Excludes and the short Central Excise Duty Appellant claimed the incident. In the Central Excise Act, 1944, the costs incurred by the buyers for transport, zakro, loading / unloading and packing, etc., were incurred by the buyers and were therefore valid. The notice was also banned due to the relevant charges did not form part of the value of the goods when no notice was issued for 5 years and 8 months after the clearance of the goods Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (3) was provided for the period. 10 years for the issuance of the notice, however, he said that these principles can only be applied in cases where there is a small exemption due to false documents, fake seal or impression, raiding or any other felony offense. There was no such allegation in the showcase notice nor any mention of R 10 (3) as the showcase notice has been issued after a period of one year / three years under R 10. (1) and (2) the Central Excise Rules were banned at the time of 1944 and consequently the order issued was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, the appeal was accepted and the appellate tribunal upheld the order.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
