Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NABHA ROAD, LAHORE versus MESSRS PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER

R 10 (1) (2) (3) Restoration of Excise Duty, Implementation Sanctions of R10, Central Excise Rules 1944, Under Trade Agreement between Government of Pakistan and Government of India, Memorandum of Understanding signed, Secretary, Ministry of Finance On the other hand, some sugar mills of Central Excise duty and sales tax obtained at zero rate, on the other hand, for export of sugar to India through Chairman Sugar Mill Association of Pakistan on 25th 1998. Exported. In 1997, in 1998 and 1998, the Chinese issued no central excise duty payment and sales tax showcase notices from India to exporters between April 2000 and October / November 2000. Export duty, surplus duty and fines on Chinese exports between 1997 and 1998 in 1997, the exporters claimed that the showcase notices issued to each exporter were barred and that the holding of the appellate tribunal was correct, the exporters. The schedule of showcase notices issued on the schedule proved to be against the expiry date of export (April 1999), which resulted in the issuance of the notice of export year such as R10 (1), the Central Excise Rules. Beyond the time stipulated under 1944, the false declaration was not explained or proved in the showcase notice. Inaccurate information; collusion; false documents; counterfeiting seal or impression or any other abusive crime such showcase notice; hence three years or ten years respectively in the R10 (2) (3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Limits cannot be reached in the long run. , In fact, lacks the necessary components and does not meet the pre-requisites for attaching R10 of the rules. law firms from Swat lawyer