Circular No. 478/44/99-CX The Chief Departmental Representative, Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi have been making substantial efforts and we have not started putting not only the gist of the cases decided in CEGAT in favour of the Department at Delhi, but even at Chennai. Similar entry at Mumbai and Calcutta is also planned in the near future. Those CEGAT orders can be easily seen on their computers by all the Commissioners once hey see the CDR”s Website pages.
Circular No. 477/43/99-CX I am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is non-uniformity in the practice with regard to determination of percentage of fly ash in the asbestos cement products for the purpose of eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 60/91 and succeeding notifications presently Notification No. 5/99 (S.No. 179). Some Commissionerates, reportedly have taken a view percentage of fly ash should be determined taking into account weight of all the raw materials including water used in the manufacture whether contained
It was clarified in Ministrys letter F.No. 354/28/99-TRU dated 18/3/99 that except in the case of hospitals run or controlled by a State Government, a Union Territory Administration or a Local Authority where certificate can be issued by the concerned State Government, U.T. Administration or Local Authority, in all other cases covered by the exemption notification, the certification
I am directed to invite your attention on the above subject and to say that a doubt has arisen whether urea imported for the production of complex fertilizers should qualify for concessional duty of 5% or should it be charged to duty at the tariff rate of 35%. The doubt has arisen particularly because, the entry against S.No. 54 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated
References have been received with regard to consideration of an application within the prescribed time limit. It has been observed that the licensing authorities are following different practices while considering whether a particular application has been submitted in time or not. It is clarified that wherever the application has been submitted alongwith the prescribed documents as mentioned in the Handbook (Vol.1) for such category of application in time, such applications shall be treated as a complete application which is submitted in time though there may be some deficiencies in the application or documents.
Circular No. 476/42/99-CX On the question of review/scrutiny of CEGAT orders involving any question having a relation to the rate of duty of Excise or to the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment, and filing civil appeals to the Hon”ble Supreme Court in appropriate cases, the Board has issued various instructions from time to time. As early as 1993, in view of the judgements of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 2674 (NM)/1992 in the matter of CCE, Chandigarh v.
Circular No. 475/41/99-CX It has been brought to the notice of the Board that after the new levy under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 production), the exporters of such goods were not aware as to what procedure should have been followed. Few exports were effected by indicating / writing on export documents (AR-4, Export Invoice, etc.) that the exports were under bond.
It is clarified that the restrictions regarding minimum import prices for steel items listed in the aforesaid Notifications will not be applicable to imports made under Advance Licences, Annual Advance Licences, Special Imprest Licences and Advance Intermediate Licences; and imports made by EOUs & units in EPZ.
I am directed to invite your attention on the above subject and to state that a doubt has been raised as to whether “Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin” would be eligible for exemption from Customs duty as applicable to Life Saving Drugs/Medicines under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated 28.2.99 or at the rate of 15% as applicable to veterinary drugs and other goods under the said Notification. The
Circular No. 474/40/99-CX I am directed to invite your attention to sub-rule 5 of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which requires every assessee to furnish to the Proper Officer a list in duplicate, of all accounts maintained and returns prepared by him (whether the same are maintained or prepared in pursuance of these rules or not), in regard to production, manufacture, storage, delivery
