Find a Lawyer

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN versus SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI

Section 3 and the First Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and the 1993 Constitutional Appeal show the responsibility of applying the High Court product leucophore duty to the laboratory test optical bleaching agent of such product (fluorescent luminous agent) duty. After classifying such products on the basis of the test proposal under Entry No. 04 03 of the First Schedule to the Demand for Central Excise Act, 1944, the revenue did not dye to prevent such a demand. Depending on your previous decision, the color is paused, which contains the product Tnopal. Based on test reports, it is found that he is an optical bleaching agent, fluorescent brightening agent and not dye validity revenue, after appellate authority and member (judicial) scrutinized the entire record / evidence and concluded that the product was leukofer dye. Was able to receive the duty for. In the present case, no test report of entry was made which showed that Lucifer was unable to paint, while in the case of Tenopal, there was no present report in the Senate reports that the Tenopal High Court was required to paint. They should have relied on the results listed by the tribunals below and have not investigated and investigated the nature of the product on the fact-finding evidence recorded by the three forums below. Were based and there were no victims. Not reading false statements or evidence, the High Court traveled beyond its jurisdiction in approving the unlawful decision. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and, in the circumstances, rejected the High Court's unwanted decision. registration advocate from Harnai lawyer