PARAMOUNT SPINNING MILLS LTD. versus CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sections 32 (2) (3), 83A, 156 (1) (CL10A), 194A, 196, 202 and 202 ASRO 484 (1) / 1992 Constitution of Pakistan 14, 1992, Arts 185 and 187 SRO 484 (1) / 1992 dated 14 5 1992 Implementation of machinery imported for the installation of textile mills at specific places and issuance of review due to SRO to the taxpayer. As stated under With the request of markup and penalty SC that the machinery was imported in the year 1992, while such notice was issued in the year 1999, the five years prescribed under section 32 (2) of the Customs Act 1969 For more than that time, the diagnosis was stopped at that time. el The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, respectively, had moved the machinery to another location without the permission of the SRO and the Ministry of Finance, but this could have been excused regardless. When it is a failure. Fu was responsible for payment of public liabilities, if any, on his terms or conditions, for collection of which there was no fixed term, show notice or order to collect public liabilities. Would require, for which a simple demand would be sufficient, there was no time for the imposed recovery, the prohibited subsidiary was compulsorily obliged to pay the adjudicatory duty and tax as it was for the purposes of section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969 No sanctions were imposed. Textile Mills violated the bond that was filed by the Assisi in pursuance of the SRO at another location, thus, in addition to committing a breach of contract, a breach of trust and
