Find a Lawyer

APPEALS NOS.2617, 2618/LB OF 2001 AND 602/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004 versus APPEALS NOS.2617, 2618/LB OF 2001 AND 602/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 13TH OCTOBER, 2004

Section 3D Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 3B Customs Act (IV of 1969), Section 194 Appeals to the Tribunal to pay extra duty return claims Central Excise during 1999 Duty and sales tax paid. In compliance with the CBR Directive, at the retail price excluding the amount of charging receivable received by CLB in compliance with its instructions, CBR then reversed its previous instructions on 12 6 1999. Lea and ordered that sales tax be calculated and paid on the basis of central excise duty and retail price and, on the basis of any deduction charges, the appellant would be made on charges of receiving cold. As instructed in, the central excise duty and sales tax payment was initiated at retail price, including winter expenses, but they were assured. Was made before the High Court directed the CBR petitions, which was accepted by the High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court. Cooling charges cannot be included in the retail price for the purpose of imposing Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax Appellants. In light of the High Court's decision, the High Court's decision lodged claims with the concerned authorities of the Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax surplus. They were included in retail costs, which included cold charges, but adjusting officers rejected claims of appellant's appropriation of the Central Excise Duty and the sales tax on retail costs at winter costs from 12 1999 onwards. Was legally valid till the time property advocates from Sarai Alamgir lawyer