Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1889 2011 SLD 1889 2011 PTD 408

S.T. No.300-KB of 2009, S.T. No.30-KB of 2004 decided on5-08-2010.
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Irshad-ur-Rehman for Appellant (in S.T. No. 30 of 2009).Syed Aftab Hussain, D.R. for
Respondent (in S.T. No. 300-KB of 2009).Syed Aftab Hussain D.R. for Appellant (in S.T. No. 30-KB of 2004).Irshad-ur-Rehman for
Respondent (in S.T. No. 300-KB of 200

Messrs KAY CHEMIST, KARACHI

VS

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX (APPEAL), KARACHI

Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944

Section: 197

(a) Central Excise Rules, 1944--R.197---Authorized officers to have free access to premises, equipment, stocks and accounts relating to excisable goods and excisable services---Raid and inspection---Raid of the taxpayer's both premises conducted by two teams each consisting of twelve staff members of the Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs, Excise and Sales Tax) upon alleged information of manufacturing of excisable goods could in no way be termed as mere an inspection---Such exercise of raid and seizure could not be stretched to mean a mere inspection under the provisions of R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---The way the staff entered into the premises of the taxpayer, the statement recorded and the goods and record resumed was out and out a raid because an inspection was by eye, search by hands and that inspection would not allow the uncovering of anything not visible merely by walking around the premises in the absence of clear judicial ruling. 2004 PTD 1731 rel. (b) Central Excise Rules, 1944--- ----R.10---Recovery of duty short-levied or erroneously refunded, etc.---Non-mention of sub-rule in the show-cause notice---Taxpayer's contention was that notice did not mention sub-rules of R.10 of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 and the show-cause notice was a vague, patently illegal and without lawful authority---Contention was repelled the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that particulars of sub-rules of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were provided therein and it was held that the show-cause notice was not vague or illegal. (c) Limitation--- ----Question of limitation was not a mere technicality but a matter of compliance of substantive law as vested rights were created in favour of the other party which right might not be taken away from him lightly. (d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 35-B---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Appeal without an application for condonation of delay---Limitation---Starting point---Limitation starts running from the date of knowledge where an order/ was not conveyed to a party for either reason. 2003 PTD 2657; 2002 PTD 399; 1987 PTD (Trib.) 54; 1985 CLC 1072; PLD 1970 SC 558; 1988 SCMR 1256; 1997…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492