Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE versus MESSRS PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS

RR 10 (1) (2) (3), 12 and 13 Sections RO 547 (1) / 96 Dated 1 6 1996 Customs Act (Fourth of 1969), Section 32 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Theft Department issued the showcase notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 to the Sugar Mills for questioning regarding the extent of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the excise duty showcase notice set forth in the Central Excise Rules 1944. Sugar mills avoided excise duty when exporting the latter sugar. The show cause notices issued by the department were illegal and excessive. No special charge was made in connection with tax evasion under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The department was aware of the sugar exports through the mills but no action was taken against them, knowing that there was no violation of the supply of the allies but thereafter, rule 10 (1) (2). Vague notices were issued by the department to meet the thresholds I provided. )) The Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 were the same as Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 High Court while allowing the appellate court to appeal the mills conviction. Was. The provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules and Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 and the Assistant Collector's Customs and other Vs Khyber Electric Lamps and others in 2001 SCMR 838 and Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise in Lahore v. Zarendra Check. Paper and Board Mills CP No. 702L in 2003 advocates from Haveli Kahuta lawyer