Find a Lawyer

versus

Section 3 Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 9, 52A, 53, 53B, 226, 241 and 246 Central Excise Duty, based on the receipt of the showcase notice to the appellants, it was issued that certain amounts of raw material from Customs Bond The goods have been extracted. The Central Excise Duty Collector was dissatisfied with the response filed by the appellant along with the duty in the warehouse without payment of customs, central excise and sales tax. The appellant calculated the raw material that was illegally removed from the customs bonded warehouse. Appellants Announce Production Authorities have failed to show any other kind of equipment without which the appellants declare that production is not possible at all. Such a situation ruled out the possibility of any additional production, which was against the appellants. Was the biggest cause of action. On the assumption that as appellants removed the raw material from customs bonded warehouse Kalenda seriously, the goods manufactured by it should also be removed without payment of central excise duty and sales tax, authorities said. Such powers were not confessed to the illegal removal of goods from the Customs Bonded Warehouse under the Customs Act, in 1969, and the relevant authorities not only took notice of the crime but also punished the appellant in accordance with the law. That was made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, should prove to be independent, which the authorities failed to do. Were. The order was originally approved by the Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, in which case the appeal was allowed. us immigration advocates from Sara e Naurang lawyer