It has been brought to the notice of the Board that in certain cases, the distinction between the functioning of Inland Container Depots (ICDs) and Container Freight Stations (CFSs) has not been properly appreciated by ICD/CFS operators, and this has been resulting in non-compliance of / or deficiency in adherence to the procedures prescribed for import/ export of goods, provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Certain field formations have also sought clarification in a few such cases.
Reference is invited to the Policy Circular No. 87 (RE-09)/2004-2009 dated 4.5.2009, on the subject cited above. Clause (a) of the Notification No. SO 1310 (E) dated 31.7.2007, substituted vide Notification No. 473 (E) dated 13.02.2009 of the Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, as mentioned in Policy Circular No. 87 (RE-09)/2004-2009 dated 4.5.2009.
Circular No. 890/10/2009-CX For the purposes of uniformity with respect to classification of ‘coconut oil’ packed in small containers and levy of excise duty, to issue the following instructions. Same issue was examined in the year 1995 but subsequently the Central Excise Tariff was amended w.e.f. 28.2.2005 and therefore, the issue has been re-examined.
As regards considering the combined export performance / duty payment of all the units of a manufacturer operating under single Importer exporter code (IE code) for the purposes of deciding the eligibility of the said importer for benefits under the said circular, it has been felt that the exporter operating under one IE code and having different units is basically one legal entity. Accordingly it has been decided that the combined export performance / duty payment of all the units of a manufacturer exporter operating under a single IE-Code shall be considered for extending the benefits of the said circular provided all such individual units are separately registered with the Central Excise department and they have fulfilled the other criteria of the said circular.
I am directed to refer to Para (vi) of Ministry’s Circular No. 64/98-Cus dated 01.09.1998, where it was clarified that in the case of merchant exporter who procures the export goods from the open market, the benefit of All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback shall be restricted to the Customs allocation only, if any. Export goods purchased from the market shall be treated as having availed the Modvat facility and would not be entitled to the Central Excise allocation of the All Industry Rate of Drawback.
Circular No. 114/08/2009-ST Dated: May 20, 2009. F.No.354/163/2006-TRU Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (Tax Research Unit),Room No.153, North Block, New Delhi, Subject: Refund of service tax paid on taxable services taxable services which are provided in relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone – Reg. Notification No.9/2009-Service Tax, dated 3.3.2009 was issued to provide refund of […]
I may invite your attention to the Supreme Court’s Larger Bench judgement in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (236) E.L.T 417 (S.C)] wherein it has been held that the High Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the “reference application” filed by the Commissioner under unamended Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the prescribed period of 180 days. The Board has taken up the matter with Law Ministry for filing Review Petition in the Supreme Court.
CIRCULAR NO. 02 / 2009 One of the fundamental principles of financial accounting is that if a person claims credit for payment of money to a third person, the credit should be allowed only if the payment and the information relating to the transaction have been received from the third person. The advance tax and self assessment tax is paid directly by the assessee by filling a challan whichbears a unique Challan Identification Number (CIN)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and other enjoined matters 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) by its pronouncement of the rule has laid the question of applicability of equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at rest. It has categorically opined that the penalty prescribed in Section 11AC is mandatory in nature and it is a civil liability.
Circular No. 3/2009-Income Tax
