Find a Lawyer

QURESHI VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS, MANGLA versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, MIRPUR

Sections 3 and 3 of the Central Excise and Salt (Adaptation) Act, 1990, section 3 and 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 225 and 226 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OXX, RR1 and 2 provisional injunctions. The grant of temporary access to a temporary restraining order, whether the defendants were supported, the notice presented to the plaintiffs for the receipt of excise duty plays some part of such duty under the defendants' protest and The interim order challenging the imposition of excise duty / imposition by the civil suit calls for the approval of the restraining courts. It was found that the plaintiffs had failed to present the case and thus were not eligible for interim injunction which was in accordance with the provisions of clause 3 and 3A, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Excise and Salt. (Adaptation) Act, 1990, that excise duty was only levied on exciseable goods manufactured or manufactured in Azad Kashmir and not for the first time on the plaintiffs, it would be reflected that the authorities were against the plaintiffs in Pakistan. Based on imported raw materials, Azad was not made in Jammu and Kashmir. Imports of raw materials in Pakistan cannot be considered as import in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and on the contrary, such statements correctly stated that the plaintiffs got the first aspect, the argument in their favor was also the case of the plaintiffs. Seems in favor. Since the payment of duty in question is likely to put them under financial pressure and not vice versa. In the preliminary case, in favor of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to suppose that the issue of maintaining balance was in favor of the plaintiffs. famous high court advocate from Jandanwala lawyer