Find a Lawyer

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND versus MESSRS BALOCHSITAN MINERALS AND OIL (PVT.) LTD., QUETTA

Mobil Mobil Oil and Lubricating Oil in the Central Excise Duty, Bulk Company of Section 2 (F) and 3 Section RO No. 456 (1) / 96, Dated 13 6 1996 Section RO No. 685 (1) / 2001, 27 2001 Was manufacturing and supplying Mobil Oil and Lubricating Oil in the Bulk High Court under a constitutional jurisdiction. It was announced that such supply was exempt from the Central Excise Duty that the lubricating oil in excess of 10 liters provided by the respondent would fall under Item No. 2710 0082 of R. A clarification through the first judgment of another High Court like A No. 456 (I) / 96, Dated, 13 6 1996 and Section RO No 685 (I) / 2001, dated 279 2001. Was needed. Under the appeal, the authorities moved a second high on the relevant provisions of Section R645, by challenging such decisions of the other higher courts and by adding another such head to bring the lubricating oil to the government in bulk. Accepted the interpretation placed by the court. 1) / 96, dated 13 6 1996 In support of the company's case rather than the dispute of authority based on the addition of subheading number 2710 0083, the Central Board of Revenue realized that the existing section of Section RO No. 456 Article (1) /, 96, dated bul 1996 1996 bul 1996 bul bul did not cover a large number of oil supplies if the purpose of the new supply was to clarify the already existing situation number 10 2782 00 82 00828282 is also included as an explanation of item no. 2710 0083 by the legislature on 136 1996, in section RO No. 685 (1) / 2001, dated 279 2001, section RO 456 (I) / 96. This confession is preferred Or that was not covered in the bulk oil supply. Current Items Supreme Court immigration advocates contact from Jandanwala lawyer