Find a Lawyer

MESSRS PAKISTAN FRUIT JUICE CO. (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD

Sections 11 (4), 33 (2) (CC), 36 (3), 45A, 45B and 46 of the Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Section 35 of the Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), section 33 ( 3) Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XNX XV 2000 of 2000), Complaint regarding Section 2 (3) Tax Limitation Claims that Showcase Notice was issued on 249 2005 And this order was passed on 20 3 2006, (177 days after the issuance of the showcase notice), while the deadline for the decision of this case expired on 23 12 2005 and according to law the order was time-barred. And the original for reopening under section 35 of the Federal Excise Act 2005 Gadget had been banned. To eliminate the demand for Central Excise Duty / Excess Duty and fine, Section A 45A of the Sales Tax Act of 1990 was submitted as the Collector decided the case under section 33 (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Permission to extend the term, without authorization to do so and payment of fines imposed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 because of the intent to impose fines under Section 33 (2) (cc) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 in the showcase notice. Competition was not made before it was actually enforced in the order nor can a decision be re-opened and The order passed in this case under the Sales Tax Act 1990 where the appeal is pending under Sections 45B and 46 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and the appeal is actually pending before the complainant's collector, the appeal to the Federal Have to withdraw. The Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Revenue Division actually establish 20 under the Federal Excise Act, Section 35 of 2005 and Section 45A of the Sales Tax Act 1990 divorce advocates from Hafizabad lawyer