CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.K-218 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 22ND NOVEMBER, 2003. versus CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.K-218 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 22ND NOVEMBER, 2003.
226 (2) Requirements to check the record The presence of a rule requires the maintenance of accounts and breaches of it were the conditions required to take action under the terms of 8 226 (2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. In the absence of such a rule, it would be unreasonable to make fraudulent allegations against the party on the basis of unspecified record, and the illegal Central Excise Officer not deliberately falls under the superintendent's office. Such a responsibility would have been imposed. Working in the jurisdiction of specific officers who, in their discretion, were better able to resolve the issue, in the absence of any clear provision in the law for the unauthorized use of the powers of the unauthorized officer Will be synonymous.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
