Circular No. 525/21/2000-CX The Supreme Court in its order dated 2.11.99 in the Civil Appeal No. 10744-45/95 in the case of M/s Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd and another Vs Commissioner of Customs Calcutta has finally settled the issue regarding this distinction sought to made between a “Spare part” and the component part. As may be observed, the Apex Court has approved the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs CC, Bombay (1997) (94) ELT 234
It is clarified that announcements regarding dividend/rights/bonus etc., can be made outside the market hours i.e if such announcements are to be made before the opening of the market hours it shall be made at least half an hour before the market opens.
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.
