Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Notification No.S.O.695(E) – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of clause (17) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and in supersession of notification number S. O. 3363, dated 7th December, 1996, of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, the Central Government hereby notifies the Constituency Allowance received by the Members of Madhya Pradesh State
Circular No. 340/56/97-CX Notification No. 8/96-CE dated 23.7.96 was issued exempting all goods falling under heading No. 52.02 produced or manufactured in a free trade zone and brought to any other place in India or by a 100% export-oriented undertaking and allowed to be sold in India, form so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as is in excess of nil duty.
Circular No. 339/55/97-CX In a case where importer had not only misrepresented that facts before the Commissioner but had also filed manipulated and fabricated documents, the Law Ministry was consulted on the point as to whether fresh Show Cause Notice can be issued by the Department under the proviso for extended period of 5 years.
Circular No. 338/54/97-CX I am directed to say that some of the importers imported “Acrylamide” and claimed duty free clearance under Notification No. 203/92-Cus as “Synthetic Adhesive” for use in the manufacture of leather goods i.e., shoe upper, leather articles, bags etc. In one of the cases, that Asstt. Commrs. of Customs as rejected the claims of the importers for duty free clearance of “Acrylamide” but subsequently the importers have managed to get favourable order at the lavel of Commr.
Circular No. 337/53/97-CX An instance has come to notice of the Board where a jurisdictional Commissioner had filled an appeal in CEGAT against the Commissioner (A)”s order remanding the case to Assistant Commissioner to determine whether various goods were eligible for modvat credit as per definition of the capital goods. As the Commissioner (Appeal)”s order was of the nature of simple remand there was no need of filing appeal against this order
