Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.343/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 30TH JANUARY, 2003. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.343/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 30TH JANUARY, 2003.

Section 20 Section RO 367 (I) / 94, Directive 955 Option to Exempt from Duty on Extraordinary Duty, Centrifugal Dryer Filtering or Purifying Machinery and Benefits of Liquid or Gas Apparatus According to Claims Section RO 367 (I) / 94, the total exemption from the payment of duty / tax was denied on June 9, 1994 and the applicants were ordered to pay the duty / tax amount. The Central Board of Revenue submitted a certificate for the benefits of Section R. O 367 (I) / 94 dated 9-5, 1994, in the light of the endorsement of the Memorandum of the Office of the Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, through its letter in the light of the certification by the Central Board of Revenue, 23 dated 8 2002, On the recommendation of the Ministry of Environment, Memorandum No. 20 (2) / 97 TO PEOC of the Office of Local Government and Rural Development, dated 169 2000, as a regulatory authority, the appellants were entitled to Section Section RO 367 (I) / 94. Dated 9 199 1994 and duty / tax demand was not sustainable The Appellate Tribunal ordered that the appellants have the benefit of Section RO 367 (I) / 94, the order dated 9-5 1994 was set aside. Arrived and in accordance with Section RO 367 (I) / 94 in connection with the supply of imported goods by the appellants, after the date 5 199 1994, the customs collector was remanded to finalize the matter. Was \ r \ n \ r \ n jobs for fresh advocates from Malakwal lawyer