MAKK BEVERAGES AND MINERAL WATERS (PVT.) LTD. PESHAWAR versus COLLECTOR (APPEAL) CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR
Section 3D & 4 (2) Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Section 11 Central Excise Rules, 1944, R11 Central Excise General Order 14 1969 Excise Duty Receipt etc. Pricing Period for Duty Purposes July, Claiming a refund of Central Excise Duty from 1994 to October 2003, it was claimed that more money was received depending on the decision of the Supreme Court. According to the orders, the excise duty allegedly received for the second time was not given to the customer as the price raised on the container was not challenged. That the newspaper was also advertised at the same price, including central excise duty. And in the case of passing cases may be applied to section 3 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, under the mistaken concern of the Act. That the retail price of each bottle was clearly and clearly indicated at what price the customer had to pay. And overpayments didn't reach the customer. And the sanctions were not enforceable under R1111 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 because the excess duty was collected illegally and the payment was not made through ignorance, inaccuracy or misunderstanding, but because of the fact that Income Tax was made to generate revenue The revenue tax claimed that the duty collected by the department was finally paid to consumers. To prove that the cases of Central Excise Duty were not given to the taxpayers on the taxpayers required under Section 3 (d) of Section 3D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Taxpayers were responsible for pricing the very labels on the bottles with regard to pricing.
