Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-603 OF 2005, DECIDED ON 20TH MARCH, 2006. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-603 OF 2005, DECIDED ON 20TH MARCH, 2006.

Sections 19, 20, 33 and 194 A Section RO 1076 (I) / 95 dated 15 11 1995, CBR Letter No. 6/6 / Fish / 96 Dated 20 5 1996 Claiming Return of Tax Exemption Appellant The Tribunal asserted that under Section RO 1076 (I) / 95 dated 5 11 1995, the government did not waive tax from the board, irrespective of the fact that the equipment was in accordance with the definition of `machinery ???? Read the accompanying tariff headings that are being explained, the exception being claimed that the Central Board of Revenue's Letter No. 6/6 / Mach / 96 dated 20 5 1996, exempted them from the exemption and refund. The claim was too much so The Pillar's claim was rejected by the Authority on the basis that the Central Board of Revenue made it clear that the return would be acceptable to importers who were given legal duty only to produce rotating frames locally. And who were entitled to a discount according to the secret. tionR O 1076 (I) / 95 Dated 5 11 1995 It was relied upon by the appellant of the Board's letter 20 5 1996 that one had to meet the duty and tax withdrawal criteria. Importers who did not sue with the Departments. Importers were asked to pay legal duty on the basis of which imported goods were manufactured locally. And (c) importers who were entitled to concessions under section RO 1076 (1) / 95 dated 5 11 1995. The facts entered were that the waiver of the exemption was not extended to the appellant on the basis that the spinning machines were manufactured locally. That the legal duty was paid. The appellant's claim was enjoyed by the board for the merit decision and it was stated that the appellant, 5 199 criminal advocate from Jhand lawyer