COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (RTO) versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY, HYDERABAD
Section 47 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 197 and 226 (2) of the Central Excise Act (I of 1944), Section 33 was a reference to the High Court's plea for significant controversy regarding the Appeals Tribunal's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Relying on the judgment (SCMR 571) (1987), it said that because the jurisdiction was wrongly accepted by the Senior Intelligence Officer, which, according to the Tribunal, was not guaranteed by law, The non-deferred action was without jurisdiction and for that reason the order was dismissed under R226 in the original jurisdiction. (2) The Central Excise Rules were neither enlarged in the showcase notice in 1944 nor in principle and the tribunal failed to identify how it made its decision on the basis of its facts. Otherwise, he did not provide good reasons. The matter has come under the auspices of the Supreme Court verdict. It will be in the interest of justice. If the matter is referred to the tribunal, it will issue a verdict after giving both the parts. ies are being heard an opportunity; and presenting all your arguments with legal and factual evidence, including arguments about the officer's jurisdiction, and then deciding on the eligibility issue.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
