Find a Lawyer

EX. A. NO. 1671 /LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 1ST MARCH, 2002. versus EX. A. NO. 1671 /LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 1ST MARCH, 2002.

Sections 34, 3, 6, 22, 23, 35, 35A, 36 and 39 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR7, 52, 52A, 210; 226, 237, 238, 241 and 246 of the Additional Taxes Cell Tax. Payment of Central Amount and Central Excise duty on the assurance that no additional tax will be imposed will be subject to the discretion of the Adjudicating Officer in this case. The provisions of section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which existed prior to the amendment introduced earlier in 1996, are, therefore, subject to the discretion of the judicial officer to impose or not to impose any additional tax. But after 1996, those words are responsible for the salary was replaced with words that indicate that the first discretion with the Adjudicating Officer was stripped, of Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 Despite such changes in the text, there may be cases that demand judicial review. Additional taxes have been decided on this amount when there were compelling reasons for the matter, which began in 1994. Aiker's discretion was not an issue that was affected by the amendment introduced in 1996. This was a fair case that should have been used in favor of the discriminator / taxpayer, additional tax exemption was granted by the appellate tribunal and the penalty of redemption would be paid by the appellant. female advocates from Khuiratta lawyer