Find a Lawyer

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

RR 10 (1) (2) (3), 12 and 13 Sections RO 547 (I) / 96 Dated 1 6 1996 Customs Act (IV 1969), Section 32 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Theft show notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the question regarding the limit set forth in the Central Excise Rules 1944, was issued to the Sugar Mills under the Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, because Sugar mills saved from excise duty while exporting 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 export of sugar through the mills but no action was taken against them, knowing that there was no violation of any of the provisions but after that 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. Examine the ratio of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and the decision of Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 and the Assistant Collector's Customs and others v Khyber Electric Lamps and others in SCMR 838 and Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise Lahori Zamindra in 2001 Check. Paper and Board Mills CP No. 702L in 2003 when you need a advocate from Kotli Loharan lawyer