Sections 25 (15), 32, 223 Section RO 412 (I) / 2001 Dated 18 6 2001 Section RO 823 (I) / 2001 Dated 1 12 2001 Section RO 377 (I) / 2002 Dated 15 6 2002 Standing Order No. 17/91 Customs General Order 2 1994 Customs General Order No. 5/94 Date 8 2 1994 Customs General Order No. 12/2002 Date 15 6 2002, Para 78 Price of imported and exported commodity decision of the Executive Committee Jurisdiction Appellant asserts that Section RO 377 (1) / 2002 dated 15 6 2002 enjoined Customs Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Judges to deal with cases relating to violations of the Customs Act, 1969. Given the authority and under which the rules and regulations set out there The terms and conditions were set. Interfaith involved the issue of price. On the contrary, the officers of the Executive Collector were entrusted with the decision made in sub-paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 2 of section R377 (I) / 2002 dated 156 2002, as the appeal related to it. Is a matter of concern. The collector's decision in the matter of pricing was a fixed and competent forum of litigation against litigation, and despite being an officer of the Executive Collector's Office, the decision was taken as an adjustment clerk's authority and the original cause notice. Was banned. The reason for the lack of jurisdiction and the reason for the inconvenience is that the order has suffered a lack of jurisdiction in which the subparagraph (a) denies the refund request (b) from the manifesto. Related to the technical breach of sanction and (f) the timing or rule exception to paragraph 2 of the utility's section RO 377 (I) / 2002, dated 15 6 2002, under which the executive collector shall comply with them. Given the option to
Related judgments — Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, 2010
