It has been observed that there is no uniformity in the practice adopted by banks while accounting for investments in Government Securities i.e. they are accounted for either on “Trade Date” or the “Settlement Date”. Hence, with a view to bringing in uniformity, it has been decided that banks should follow “Settlement Date” accounting for recording both outright and ready forward purchase and sale transactions in Government Securities.
Members of CFMS are using the funds transfer module to transfer funds from one DAD to another DAD from their payment gateways. At present, the time window for funds transfer module of CFMS is from 11:00 hours to 16:30 hours on weekdays and from 11:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays.
Service Providers of services listed in Appendix 41 of HBPv1 would alone be eligible. Such eligible Service Providers will be entitled to Duty Credit Scrip equivalent to 10% of free foreign exchange earned during current financial year.
Para 3.6.1 of the HBPv1 titled ‘Ineligible Remittances and Services for SFIS Scheme’ gives the categories which are not eligible for this scheme. Para 3.6.1(g) of the HBPv1 (Updated as on 23.8.2010) relating to Telecom Sector is deleted. The word ‘Airlines,’ appearing in the Para 3.6.1(h) of the HBPv1 (Updated as on 23.8.2010) is also deleted.
Circular No. 06/2011-Customs The undersigned is directed to invite your attention to Circular No.58/2004-Cus. dt.21.10.2004 on the above subject as amended by Circular Nos.17/2009-Cus. dt.25.5.2009 and 32/2009-Cus. dt.25.11.2009 and to state that references have been received with reference to para 3.2(c) of the Circular No. 58/2004-Cus. dt.21.10.2004. Para 3.2(c ) of the said Circular, interalia, stipulates that exemption from Bank Guarantee contemplated therein will not be available in case the licence holder has been penalized under the provisions of Customs Act,1962, the Central Excise Act,1944, the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA),1999 or the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,1992 during the previous three Financial years.
Circular No. 133 / 2 / 2011 – ST F.No.332/36/2010-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax Research Unit North Block, New Delhi 18th January 2011 To Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Service Tax (All), Director General (Service Tax), Director General (Central Excise Intelligence), Director General (Audit), Commissioners of Service Tax (All), […]
Circular No. 7/2011-Customs I am directed to invite your attention to the Board circular No.03/2010-Cus dated 12.02.2010 regarding classification of handicraft and artware items in the Drawback Schedule. The circular clarified that the assessing authorities should normally accept certificates issued by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) / EPCH certifying the goods as artware/ handicrafts.
We undertake that the beneficial owner and the person(s) to whom the Offshore Derivative Instrument is issued in compliance with Regulation 15A of SEBI (FII) Regulations. We also undertake that the KYC compliance norms have been followed for the beneficial owner of the Offshore Derivative Instrument.
Instruction F.No. 609/119/2010-DBK Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011 To, All Chief Commissioners of Customs / Customs & Central Excise, All Directors General of CBEC/CDR, CESTAT, All Commissioners of Customs / Customs & Central Excise. Sir/Madam, Sub: Progress in the implementation of the Bank Realization Certificate […]
The Supreme Court held recently held in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Versus Shakuntala & Ors that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation for road accident death even if the owner had sold the vehicle so long as his name is the official register. The previous owner might have handed over possession of the vehicle to the buyer, but he and his insurer continued to be liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy is in his name. In this case, Pushpa vs Shakuntala, the owner sold the truck to another person. But the vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company in the previous owner’s name. There was an accident killing three persons. Their dependents moved the motor accident claims tribunal against Oriental and the previous owner. The tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh high court held that the previous owner had no liability as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle. They ruled that the new owner alone was liable to pay. The dependents appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurance company argued in the Supreme Court that the liability should entirely be that of the new owner as the old owner had lost control of the vehicle after the sale. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court made the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount.
