Find a Lawyer

MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 Sections 3 (1) (4) and (7) Excise Duty for Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1971, R 3 Excise Duty Sugar Mills were granted powers either on the basis of productivity or Check based on Under Production Capability Rules, 1971, actual production can be estimated on the basis of actual production. Upon the cancellation of the 1971 rule by excise duty under the Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules 1972, no applicant had chosen to levy tax and receive tax. On the basis of annual productivity, the applicants were charged under 5 (1), the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944, because the rules for fixing the annual production capacity of 1971 were not applicable to them. The applicant was not entitled to claim the side benefit (7) provided that the provisions of section 3 (7) were provided for the return of section 3 (1) of the Act (I of 1944) only. I may apply where the notification issued under section 4 was canceled or not enforceable where section 3 (4) of the A Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 was amended. The alternatives we make cannot apply the provisions of section 3 (7) by enforcing the 1972 rules and enforcing the 1972 rules. law websites from Choa Saiden Shah lawyer