Join us on 8th Dec for a live webinar on GST and corporate guarantees. Learn valuation, co-guarantor liability, cross-border impacts, and practical examples.
Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
With respect to Focus Product Scheme/High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme, it is clarified that Para 4 above shall again apply, as the item which has been restricted / prohibited for exports is obviously ineligible, as the same would no longer remain a Focus Product/High-Tech Product for the purpose of boosting export through grant of benefits (even if the export product is appearing under Appendix 37D/37E of HBP v1).
To conduct the post-audit of the Brand Rates fixed by the Central Excise field formations and carry out physical verification of selected cases independently or with the help of the Central Excise formations. To conduct the post-audit of the select cases of duty free imports allowed under various export promotion schemes in the Customs/Central Excise formations.
: IT is not only the Ministry of Commerce which is struggling to sculpt a perfect substitute for the most popular exports incentive scheme of DEPB, even the Income Tax Department has been breaking its head against multiple possibilities as to how to treat the value of DEPB. And the very same question came before the Tribunal in a recent case. The merchant exporter had computed its Sec 80HHC benefits by taking into consideration the DEPB income whereas the A.O. did not consider DEPB income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Let’ take a quick stroll through the various arguments and the recent judicial pronouncements which enabled the Tribunal to form a concrete opinion on this contentious issue.
the process of review under Section 35E of the Act could be resorted to for challenging the refund sanction orders passed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanction orders of the original authority were only consequential to the order of the appellate authority and any process of review should have been thought of against the appellate order rather than against the consequential orders of the original authority. The appellate authority’s order (which treated the refund claims as not time-barred) became final and binding on the Department in the absence of review and, consequently, it was not open to the Department to demand duty from the party on the ground of erroneous refund.
