An issue has been raised regarding the admissibility of DEPB benefit for the export of MS Galvanized Sheets/Strips made prior to 01.04.2000 keeping in view the existence of two possible DEPB entries at S.N. 91 and 363 covering such exports. It has been decided that the DEPB benefit for such exports shall be granted as per the entry at S.N. 363 in view of the fact that the DEPB entry at S.N. at 91 covers only those inputs which are both galvanized and coated.
It has come to the notice of the board that the principles of natural justice are not being followed during adjudication of the cases, which result in frequent remand of cases on the ground of non-observance of the principles
Mark to Market Margin shall be collected separately from daily/exposure margin as the purpose of these margins is different.
Once this margin is imposed by any Exchange having ALBM or MCFS facility, the other Exchanges having ALBM or MCFS will also follow the same from the start of next settlement.
The positions referred to would exclude the positions pertaining to the pure securities borrowers to the extent that the collateral securities are kept with the clearing house/corporation.
AMC boards may develop a mechanism to verify that due diligence is being exercised while making investment decisions.
I am directed to invite your attention on the subject mentioned above and to state that a case was referred to for clarification on certain doubts regarding levy of interest for delayed payment of duty under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 where the bill of entry for certain imports was assessed provisionally denying the benefits of EPCG scheme, as EPCG license was not produced at the
The last para of the format of the review report has been partially modified by substituting the word “misstatement” with “material misstatement” and the last para of the format of the review report.
Circular No. 539/35/2000-CX Your attention is invited to the DO letter F.No. 385/62/99/JC/2000 dated 17.2.2000 from Shri P.N. Malhotra, Member (L&J) and addressed to all Chief Commissioners of Customs and Central Excise. Through the said letter, Board had informed the Chief Commissioners about the out-come of our SLP and related CAs on the question whether the principles of unjust enrichment would be applicable in respect of cases of refund of duty paid on imported raw-materials even if captively consumed in the manufacture of final product.
Circular No. 538/34/2000-CX Please refer to the Board”s instruction contained in its circular No. 313/29/97-CX (F.No. 390/107/97-JC) dated 6.5.97 wherein it had been stated that the jurisdictional Commissioner would be primarily responsible for examining each and every order for filling Civil Appeal or Reference Application, as the case may be and if the Commissioner feels that a Civil Appeal under Section 35L/130 E is to be filed against a particular CEGAT Order relating to rate of duty
