Circular No. 524/20/2000-CX Please refer to your letter C.No. IV/16/303/99-CZO dated 7.1.2000 on the above subject and Board’s instructions issued vide F.No., 390/24/99-JC dated 30.3.99. Vide your letter you have drawn attention of the Board to the fact that Commissioner (A), Chennai after considering representations have issued orders asking the appellants to pre-deposit certain amount of duty without grant of personal hearing (reying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CA No. 3597 of 1995 dated 25.3.96 in the case of Union of India vs M/s Jesus Sales Corporation,
Circular No. 523/19/2000-CX It is directed to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 4.2.2000 (Civil Appeal No.921 of 1992) in the case of UOI and others Vs.Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC). The issue of applicability of unjust enrichment provision before granting refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act,1962 was decided by the Ho’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Solar Pesticides Pvt.
As a result of the Annual Review of the Exim Policy 1997-2002, para 7.36A of the Handbook of Procedure, Vol.1 has been amended with effect from 1.4.2000 to the effect that ‘PMV declaration shall not be applicable for products for which value cap exist irrespective of the DEPB rate of the product
Various representations have been received from the Trade/Exporters that their applications for fixation of brand rate in consequence to the said Circular No. 39/99 are hit by the limitation of time limit under Rule 6/7of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, as the said Circular No. 39/99 was issued on 25.6.99, whereas under the Drawback Rules, they are
The revised Exim Policy and the corresponding Handbook of Procedure, Vol.I have come into effect from 1.4.2000. Apart from other changes in this Policy, the Pre-Export DEPB Scheme has been withdrawn. However, the provision made in Notification No.34/97-Cus. Dated7.4.97 to permit duty free import of goods against such Pre-Export DEPB scrips by its amendment vide
In the above Circular No.35, dated 01.10.99 the word “export obligation equivalent to 6 times or 8 times of the depreciated value mentioned in paragraph 3 and similarly referred to in the paragraph 4 may be corrected to read as export obligation 4 times or 6 times of the depreciated value.
F.No. B-4/7/2000-TRU As you are aware, CENVAT Rules were notified vide notification No. 11/2000-CE(NT) dated 1st March, 2000 and they were to come into force from 1.4.2000. Since then, we have received references from the Commissioners as also from trade and industry, seeking clarification on certain aspects.
F.No. B-4/4/2000-TRU I am directed to say that the following changes have been made in the excise duty structure relating to the textiles sector and notification Nos. 24 & 30/2000-CE and 24 to 28 & 30 to 32/2000-CE(NT) all dated the 31st March, 2000 have been issued in this regard.
Circular No. 522/2000-CX It is directed to say that, as you are aware, the scheme of levy of excise duty based on capacity of production under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of hot steel re-rolling mills and induction furnace units is being, discountinued w.e.f., 1st April, 2000. Accordingly, Notification No.24/97(NT), dated 25th July, 1997, 30/97(NT), 31/97(NT), 32/97(NT), 47/97, 48/97, 58/97, all dated 1 August, 1997, are being rescinded w.e.f. 1st April, 2000.
As announced by the Hon’ble finance Minister in his Budget Speech in Perliament in regard to presentation of Budget for the year 1999-2000, a Committee was constituted in the Finance Ministry to review the transaction cost of Indian exports. This Committee was chaired by the Finance Secretary. The Committee has recently concluded its report and made a number of recommendations
