Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that according to a practice that was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of Excise (including nonlevy thereof) under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, of 1944(1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), duty of excise on aerated waters prepared and dispensed by vending machines falling under Chapter heading no. 2201.20 or 2202.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 to 1944), the Central Government having satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 6/2000-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2000, namely:- In the said notification.
G.S.R (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) read with rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby invests the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow with the powers of the Commissioner of Central Excise
Goods of heading 15.07 to 15.15 – Notification No 16/2000 – Customs amended- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 16/2000-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2000
In a recent matter involving a representation for condonation of shortfall of stay in India, the Hon’ble MOSF(R) has expressed his anguish over the indifferent and unresponsive approach and lack of sensitivity of our officers even to the genuine representations/complaints by general public. The field officers did not even bother to forward representation to the Government and
Circular No. 519/15/2000-CX It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the copies of Civil Appeals alongwith para-wise comments and brief facts of the case in respect of appeals filed by the parties in the Hon’ble Supreme Court are received very late in the Board from the Commissionerates. As a result filing of counter affidavit is delayed and in number of cases parties are able to get ex-party stay from Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Circular No.518/14/2000-CX Recently the Southern Bench of CEGAT vide its final Order 1786/99 dated 21.7.1999 in the case of M/s TVS Suzuki had held that provision of unjust enrichment under Section 11B cannot be invoked in the cases of refund where assessments were provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules before insertion of proviso to sub-rule 9B in June, 1999
“17A. If- (i) Manufactured out of yarn falling under sub-heading No. 5402.42 of the First Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise under the First Schedule, the special duty of excise leviable under the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, or as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, has already been paid.
Circular No.517/13/2000-CX In keeping with the global thrust for making optimum use of available IT resources expediting communication of important decisions/news relating to Court matters and minimizing the use of papers as a means of communication, a page for judicial Cell has been put on the CBEC Website Newtwork “finm.in.nic.in”. For the present it will contain information about the Civil Appeals/SLPs filed in Supreme Court as well as those which have been admitted.
The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)
