APPEAL NO.703/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 20TH MARCH, 2002. versus APPEAL NO.703/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 20TH MARCH, 2002.
The amount of goods seized by the Central Excise Officer in sections 22 and 9 of heavy search seizures, fines and fines as shown in the excise record was much higher than the balance shown in the 455 bundle Central Excise. ? About the record at the time of the tracking staff visit, the appellant explained that the balance of the RG1 register was approved for payment of product duty the previous day, which was due to heavy rains. Had to be taken in. After payment of duty, the cleared goods could not be returned to the mills without the permission of the Central Excise Authorities order of the one-time payment officer as the goods in question were deemed legitimate to be confiscated.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Kunri lawyer
