In cases where original EP copy of Shipping Bill(s) / Bill of export and/or Bank Realisation Certificates has been submitted under any other scheme of FTP, a self attested photocopy(s) of EP copy of the same be attached, quoting Reference File no. & concerned Regional Authority where original documents have been submitted.
Though there is no definition of the term ‘total turnover’ in section 10A, there is also nothing in the said section to mandate that what is excluded from the numerator (export turnover) would nevertheless form part of the denominator. One would have to apply consistent standards in understanding and applying a term, particularly when, such term, viz. export turnover has an independent function and at the same time a part of a larger term viz., total turnover.Thus, if some expenses, for any reason are excluded in arriving at the ‘export turnover’ the same should be reduced form ‘total turnover’ also.
I am directed to invite your attention to the above mentioned subject and to say that several representations have been received by the Board on the issue of classification of carpets having mixed composition under the Drawback Schedule, 2007-08. It has been represented that hand woven rugs/floor coverings made of 57% wool +25% cotton +18% viscose or 52% wool +13% nylon+ 35% cotton are being assessed by the Customs authorities.
CIRCULAR NO. 1/2008-Income Tax Representations have been received from various quarters regarding applicability of the provisions of Section 194-I to cooling charges paid by the various customers to the owners of cold storages. It has been represented that the cold storage owners provide a composite service, which involves preservation of essential food items including perishable goods at various temperatures suitable for specific food items for required periods and storage of goods being incidental to the activity of preservation. The cooling of goods is controlled through mechanical process. The customer brings its packages for preservation for a required period and takes away its packages after paying cooling charges. The customer does not hire the building, plant/machinery etc. in any manner and does not become a tenant of any kind.
IN a remarkably interesting ruling, involving the IT giant Infosys Technologies, the Apex Court has held that every benefit received by a person is not taxable as income unless the Legislature makes the same taxable. For period prior to 2000, there were no provisions in the Income Tax Act to tax ESOPs. As regards the TDS, it noted that ESOPs were not taxable during the lock-in period as the value of non-transferable shares (perquisite) was not ascertainable. As regards the Clause (iiia) of Sec 17 the SC held that it was not clarificatory as argued by the Revenue and very much prospective if one goes by the wordings used in the Clause and the explanatory memorandum of the Finance Act, 1999.
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.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 89/2002-Customs, dated the 3rd September, 2002, published in the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.615 (E), dated the 3rd September 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
