Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-371 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 23RD OCTOBER, 2000. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-371 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 23RD OCTOBER, 2000.

Sections 195 and 32 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 45A (4) and 34 Income Tax Ordinance, (XXXX of 1979), Section 86 Sec R 815 (I) / 93, Dated 169 1993 Section RO 825 (I) / 93, dated 209 1993 CBR Letter C No. 2 (9) / Tax II / 93, dated 169 1993 section RA 1105 (I) / 93, dated 18 10 1993 section RO 490 ( I) / 93 The Central Board of Power Revenue or Customs Collector was reopening the case to approve certain orders and the appellant was requested to satisfy the allegations leveled against him - as in the earlier showcase notices. Is listed and further claimed that this case was not investigated. Its original order was approved and in addition to the enforcement of the dues, markup was made on 14 up and the additional tax appellant claimed that the goods were cleared in November, 1994, 1994, @ 5% duty and sales tax first. The show cause notice was not timely but the Second Assessment Order 3 11 1994 was passed and again the show cause notice was issued, the date 3 10 1996 was explicitly withheld by a limitation period of the Customs Act, 1969. The provisions of the religion month under section 32 were more than the limits specified in section 195 of the Customs Act, 1969, if duty could not be obtained under section 32 (3) of the Customs Act 1969 The showcase notice was not submitted inside. If the goods were not satisfied with the court order, unless the goods were approved or the order of the assessment was made unambiguously stated or incorrectly declared by the importer. Date 3 11 1994, was spent elsewhere, and the order was allowed to reach the final limit as suggested or permitted by law. registration advocate from Machh lawyer