Circular No. 478/44/99-CX The Chief Departmental Representative, Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi have been making substantial efforts and we have not started putting not only the gist of the cases decided in CEGAT in favour of the Department at Delhi, but even at Chennai. Similar entry at Mumbai and Calcutta is also planned in the near future. Those CEGAT orders can be easily seen on their computers by all the Commissioners once hey see the CDR”s Website pages.
Circular No. 477/43/99-CX I am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is non-uniformity in the practice with regard to determination of percentage of fly ash in the asbestos cement products for the purpose of eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 60/91 and succeeding notifications presently Notification No. 5/99 (S.No. 179). Some Commissionerates, reportedly have taken a view percentage of fly ash should be determined taking into account weight of all the raw materials including water used in the manufacture whether contained
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 15/97-Customs, dated the 1st March,1997, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under the Chapter, Heading No. or Sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
In exercise of powers conferred under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.3 and 4.1 of the Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the ITC(HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, 1997-2002 publishedon 31st March, 1997 (RE-98) as amended from time to time, namely.
It was clarified in Ministrys letter F.No. 354/28/99-TRU dated 18/3/99 that except in the case of hospitals run or controlled by a State Government, a Union Territory Administration or a Local Authority where certificate can be issued by the concerned State Government, U.T. Administration or Local Authority, in all other cases covered by the exemption notification, the certification
I am directed to invite your attention on the above subject and to say that a doubt has arisen whether urea imported for the production of complex fertilizers should qualify for concessional duty of 5% or should it be charged to duty at the tariff rate of 35%. The doubt has arisen particularly because, the entry against S.No. 54 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
