EX. A. NO. 1722 OF 2002 AND S.T.A. NO. 1859 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH DECEMBER, 2004. versus EX. A. NO. 1722 OF 2002 AND S.T.A. NO. 1859 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH DECEMBER, 2004.
Sections 4 (2) and 3D Sales Tax Act (VII VI 1990), Section 31 Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 6 (2) and Section 10 RO 232 (I) / 91, dated 10 3 1991 Section RO88 ( I) / 2000, dated 1 7 2000 CBR Letter C No 1 (20) CEB / 94, Date 9 1 1994 CBR Letter C No 1 (2) CEB / 94, Date 1 2 1995 Ext. The Department of Recovery from pricing duty, etc., for the purposes of recovery, has claimed that the appellant was still not part of the retail price and could not be included in the retail price till 30 6 1995 1995. Made and received a portion of the retail price. Considering the clear provisions of the Central Excise Act 1944, the user was required to submit all such illegal payments to the Federal Government under Section 3d of the Central Excise Act 1944 and to recover them as arrears. Was. Accuracy octroi charges that were not payable were being borne by the manufacturer and instead payable by the taxpayer, misappropriating the provisions of section 4 (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944. Is being made The Central Board of Revenue rejected the decision that deductions from unpaid charges could not be allowed. Due to retail prices being illegal, octroi charges were not paid on supplies made in the municipal limits. There was no justification for the appellant to include such charges in the retail price and if they did, they could not claim deduction from the charges as if they were not paid by them themselves. Violation of section 4 (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Thul lawyer
