|
Legislative and Regulatory Update
|
You now have the option
of customizing your manupatra round-up
.This means
that you get updates on the areas of interest that you select .You may
change your preferences at any time you wish to. If you do not customize
your round up you will continue to get the updates on all areas
To
customize your round-up now click here.
_____________________________________________________________________ |
|
India Centric
Online Legal & Business DatabaseBringing forth new efficiency and
unparalleled results to research
efforts. |
| In This Issue |
|
[No.54]
June 30, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
To
keep you informed about the latest Legislative and Regulatory
information manupatra.com
publishes this e-roundup highlighting the recent changes brought
about by the Notifications/Acts/Bills /Ordinances etc.
About
manupatra.com
../
provides comprehensive and easy to use legal and related
information over the Internet .Our database covers Central
Laws , Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court (full
text of the judgments from 1950 onwards ), Orders of
Tribunals , Bills , Notifications, Circulars and
more
Key
features of manupatra are
 |
Content
is derived from reliable primary and secondary
sources |
|
Database
is updated on a daily basis |
|
Electronic
Ready Reckoner to view the judgments under a particular section of
an Act / Subject |
|
Powerful
search engine with user friendly
interfaces |
|
Search
in any one court/year or multiple
courts/year |
|
Hyper-linking
of documents |
|
Updated
modules on WTO, Anti Dumping, Arbitration, Investment Destinations
Abroad, Capital Markets, Taxation, Environment, Cyber & IT
Laws, IPR, Corporate Laws, Industrial Policies, Foreign Trade,
Forex & Banking and more
|
For
subscription to manupatra.com or for more details please log onto ../
or call us at 0120 4531811 or send an email to : contact@manupatra.com
If
at any stage you wish to stop receiving the e-roundup
please click here to unsubscribe. | |
|
International Legal News
|
|
Cases
Source:
Westlawinternational.com
Denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has let stand a decision of
the Federal Circuit that a patent sublicense was invalidated upon the
determination that its grantor had obtained the underlying nonexclusive license
by fraud, even if the sublicensee was a bona fide purchaser for value. The
Federal Circuit held that the bona fide purchaser defense was not applicable in
the absence of an effective title transfer.
The petition for certiorari argued that the Federal Circuit decision created an
issue of enormous commercial importance and was contrary to the Federal
Circuit's own prior precedent, as well as established principles of intellectual
property and commercial law regarding the availability of a bona fide purchaser
(BFP) defense to patent licensees. "The importance of the question whether
BFP licensees may rely in good faith on their licenses, or must obtain consents
or waivers from every party in the chain, beginning with the inventor, can
scarely be exaggerated," the petition said.
Monsanto Co. v. Bayer CropScience, S.A.
The
United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari from an unpublished decision
in which the Kansas Court of Appeals held that the Kansas criminal sodomy law,
K.S.A. 21-3505, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, even though, in the
instant case, its application resulted in a 17-year prison sentence for
consensual oral sex between teenagers of the same sex, while the state's
"Romeo and Juliet law," K.S.A. 21-3522, would have imposed a sentence
of no more than 15 months for the same conduct if the teenagers had been members
of the opposite sex.
The Supreme Court also vacated the Kansas appellate court's judgment and
remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court's decision in
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 WL 21467086. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that
a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in
certain intimate sexual conduct, but not criminalizing such conduct with another
individual of the opposite sex, violated the Due Process Clause. (Case below:
State v. Limon, 41 P.3d 303 (Kan.App. 2002)(TABLE), rev. den. (Kan. 2002).)
Limon v. Kansas
Granting
certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a fee
that credit card companies imposed when, at a card user's request, they
knowingly allowed her to exceed her original credit limit, as an incident to
this extension of credit in an excess amount, was a "finance charge,"
such as the companies were required to disclose pursuant to the Truth in Lending
Act (TILA). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this "over-
limit" fee was a finance charge within the meaning of the TILA.
The Truth in Lending Act [15 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)] defines "finance
charge" as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
amount of the finance charge in connection with any consumer credit transaction
shall be determined as the sum of all charges, payable directly or indirectly by
the person to whom the credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by
the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit." Regulation Z,
which was promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), defines "finance
charge" as "the cost of consumer credit," including "any
charge payable directly or indirectly by the consumer" and imposed by the
creditor as a result of the extension of credit, but, at 12 C.F.R. §
226.4(c)(2), excludes from this definition of finance charge "[c]harges for
actual unanticipated late payment, for exceeding a credit limit, or for
delinquency, default, or a similar occurrence."
Interpreting the TILA liberally in favor of the card user, the Court of Appeals
ruled that, "despite the language in § 226.4(c)(2) of Regulation Z, we
believe the fee imposed in this case falls squarely within the statutory
definition of a finance charge." The card user alleged that companies
imposed the $29.00 over-limit fee after she requested and was granted additional
credit, the court explained. Had the companies not granted the card user's
request for additional credit, which resulted in her exceeding her credit limit,
they would not have imposed the over-limit fee. Thus, under a plain reading of
§ 1605(a) and the general rules of statutory interpretation, the $29.00 fee was
imposed incident to the extension of credit, and pursuant to the TILA, the
companies were obligated to disclose the fee as a finance charge on her monthly
statement.
The companies failed to argue that the $29.00 fee was not imposed incident to
the extension of credit, the Sixth Circuit noted, but instead vehemently
contended that the court was required to defer to Regulation Z. The Court of
Appeals disagreed. "[C]onsidering the language in § 1605(a) defining the
finance charge and the language and purpose of TILA as a whole, Regulation Z's
exclusion of over-limit fees, such as those imposed in this case, from the
'finance charge' conflicts with the express language of TILA," the court
reasoned. "In such instances, the regulation cannot stand."
The Court of Appeals also distinguished the over-limit charge at issue in this
case from the other charges listed in 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(c)(2). The court agreed
that, in situations where the consumer is in default, is delinquent in payment,
or submits an unanticipated late payment, so that the lender is placed in a
position of having unexpectedly to bear the cost of the borrower's tardiness,
the lender should certainly be allowed to impose a late fee or default fee to
account for this assumed risk. However, the court found the scenario to be
"entirely different where, as here, the borrower has reached her credit
limit, requests more credit, and the lender agrees to that extension of extra
credit, but assesses a fee as a result." In such an instance, the fee
clearly is imposed incident to the extension of credit, the court concluded.
In their petition for a writ of certiorari, the credit card companies questioned
the Court of Appeals' disregard of Regulation Z, asking "[w]hether the
Sixth Circuit improperly substituted its interpretation of the Truth in Lending
Act for that of the Federal Reserve-the agency authorized by Congress to
interpret the statute-in invalidating an important provision of Regulation Z
that affects tens of millions of consumer credit card agreements." (Case
below: Pfennig v. Household Credit Services, Inc., 295 F.3d 522 (C.A.6-Ohio
2002), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc den. (C.A.6-Ohio 2002).)
Household
Credit Services v. Pfennig
Denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has let stand an en banc
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the actions of anti-
abortion activist organizations in publicly disclosing, through
"guilty" posters and an Internet web site, the names and addresses of
abortion providers, constituted true "threats of force" within the
meaning of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). Thus, the Court
of Appeals ruled, these actions were not protected speech under the First
Amendment.
A "threat of force" under FACE means a statement which, in the entire
context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would
be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious
expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person. By knowingly
replicating a "wanted"-type poster pattern that had preceded the
murder of other abortion providers and by putting the abortion providers in an
abortionists' file that "scored" fatalities, the organizations were
not staking out a position of debate, but of threatened demise, the Ninth
Circuit reasoned.
In their petition for writ of certiorari, the anti-abortion organizations
challenged the Ninth Circuit's determination that their communications were not
protected by the First Amendment. They questioned, inter alia, whether the
"guilty" posters, as public communication of political protest which
admittedly contained no threatening language, could be deemed a
"threat" solely on the basis of an alleged pattern between the format
of that communication and the format of earlier "wanted" posters that
were followed remotely by isolated crimes against some persons named in the
other posters, and whether civil liability could be predicated on a website that
was concededly protected First Amendment speech merely because its list of names
was interpreted as an implied threat when read in conjunction with the
supposedly threatening format of other communications naming the same
people.
American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood of
Columbia/Willamette, Inc.
News
-
Enron
was granted 11-day extension for filing reorganization plan by
a federal judge on Monday. The Plan was to be filed on Monday. But last week Enron asked for more time, saying
it had reached a consensus with creditors on the plan but still needed
to work out details. The plan will spell out how Enron will partly pay back the creditors to whom
it owns tens of billions of dollars. In addition to splitting proceeds from
asset sales, Enron creditors will likely receive stock in the companies created
from Enron's remaining assets in the pipelines, utility and international power
sectors.
-
California
Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Companies besieged by unwanted e-mail can
only invoke the state's trespass-to-chattels law if the messages causes
actual damage to equipment or property. The judges said it's not enough if
the unwanted messages just take time and attention away from employees but
said the law could still be used against senders of spam that overloads
company servers. Intel corp. failed to produce any evidence that e-mails
sent by Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, an ex-employee to workers through Intel's
Internet connections and internal computer system slowed its system or
otherwise impaired it. The ruling overturned Lower Court's injunction and
was welcomed by advocates of free speech in Cyber Laws.
-
The
New Jersey Supreme Court has consolidated all suits over Merck & Co.'s
anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx to one county judge. The shift occurred because
the state high court felt other vicinages should shoulder some of the
increasingly heavy load. An attorney who has six of the existing 16 cases
predicted total cases over the drug, which involve disparate injury claims,
will soon triple.
-
MGM
will sell 20 percent stake in three of its national cable networks for $500 million, to
Cablevision Systems Corporation, giving it money which would be used
to help finance a bid for the entertainment assets of Vivendi Universal. MGM
will sell its stake in American Movie Classics, the Independent Film Channel
and WE: Women's Entertainment. It will receive $250 million in cash when the
deal closes and a $250 million note that matures in five months. At that
time, Cablevision can choose to pay off the note with cash or Class A shares
of Cablevision stock.
-
Securities and Exchange
Commission has passed changed rules for stock options and other equity
compensation for companies trading on the biggest United States stock
markets. Approval of shareholders will be required before granting stock
options and other equity compensation .The new rules also require companies
to obtain shareholder approval before changing the exercise price of
existing option grants.
-
Oracle
has received a second request for more information from the U.S.
Department of Justice as federal regulators formally investigate its
hostile bid for PeopleSoft for possible antitrust issues. An Oracle
spokesman said in a statement that the company, given the scope and
complexity of the proposed $6.3 billion deal and expected a request for
additional information which comes after an initial two-week review of the
proposed deal under the usual Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust act.
-
U.S.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia on June 26,
2003, of the overturned a lower court’s preliminary injunction that would
have required Microsoft to carry Sun’s Java technology in the Windows
operating system. The court upheld the same lower court's ruling that
Microsoft had infringed on Sun's copyrights.
-
U.S
Supreme Court in the matter of Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, on Thursday
refused to review California Supreme Court's judgment and sent it back for
possible trial. The dispute is over whether Nike is entitled to full First
Amendment protection for its statements made in defense of its global labor
practices during the late 1990s.
|
|
SEBI
|
|
Secondary Market Division
-
Failure to pay fees in the manner specified in Schedule III of the SEBI (Stock brokers and Sub-brokers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 read with Circular No. SMD/ Policy/ Cir-07/ 2002 dated March 28, 2002
Circular No. SMD/DBA-II/Cir-28/12348/03 Dated 25.06.2003 : Vide Circular No. SMD/Policy/Cir-07/2002 dated March 28, 2002 , SEBI had provided a facility to all brokers who did not pay fees, that they should pay at least 50% of the principal due in the cash market and give an undertaking to pay the balance fees within a period of two years along with interest. Such facility was kept open to all brokers up to March 31, 2003 . The decision that the 50% facility would not be available after March 31, 2003 was communicated to all Exchanges vide circular SMD/DBA-II/Cir-01/178 /03 dated January 03, 2003 .
It is informed that those members who have failed to comply with the 50% facility by March 31, 2003 and for whom collection of fees has not been stayed by any Court of law, are required to pay the entire fees and interest payable up to financial year 2002-03 by August 31, 2003, failing which, appropriate action as permissible under the SEBI Act, 1992 or the SEBI (Stock brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 would be initiated.
Circular No. SEBI/SMD/SE/cir-26/2003/25/06 Dated 25.06.2003 : Pursuant to the discussions of the Advisory Committee on Derivatives and Market Risk Management, it has been decided that close out mark up of 5% would be applied in case of debentures and bonds which are assigned a credit rating of triple A and above. However, for the other debentures and the bonds without the triple A credit rating, the existing close out mark up of 20% shall be applicable as is applicable in the case of equities.
Circular No. SEBI/SMD/SE/25/2003/ 19 /06 Dated 19.06.2003 : SEBI, vide its circular no. SMDRP/CIR-14/98 dated April 29, 1998 had prescribed that the Stock Exchanges shall fix the quantum of listing fees after obtaining approval from SEBI. It has now been decided that the stock exchanges will have the freedom to charge listing fees without seeking approval of SEBI.
Accordingly, the exchanges are directed to make necessary amendments to the bye-laws, rules and regulations/listing agreement in order to incorporate the specific provisions regarding the same.
Circular No. SEBI/SMD/SE/Cir- 24/2003/18/06 Dated 18.06.2003 : SEBI has received representations from stock exchanges with a request for refund/withdrawal of the base minimum capital in view of the insignificant volumes at the exchanges. The issue has been examined and it has been decided to review the capital requirements as prescribed in
the circulars no. SMD/SED/Cir/93/22570 dated October 21, 1993 and SMD/SED/RCG/270/96 dated January 19, 1996.
Circular No. SEBI/SMD/SE/Cir-22/2003/11/06 Dated 11.06.2003 : SEBI circular no SMDRP/Policy/Cir-19/99 dated July 02, 1999 specifies the additional capital required to be deposited in the form of cash, fixed deposit receipts (FDRs), bank guarantees and securities. Presently the cash component of additional capital and margins is specified as 30%. The issue of composition of additional capital and margins has been discussed by the Advisory Committee on Derivatives and Market Risk Management and based on the deliberations of the Committee, it has been decided that the composition of additional capital and margins and the eligibility criteria for securities shall be revised.
Circular No. SEBI/SMD/SE/ 21 /2003/05/06 Dated 05.06.2003 : This issue was considered by the Advisory Committee on Derivatives and Market Risk Management and pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee it has been decided that the reduced exposure shall apply to atleast ten rolling settlements instead of four settlement as specified in the circular
no.SMDRP/Policy/Cir-16/2001, dated March 09, 2001. Mutual
Funds Division
Circular No. SEBI/MFD/CIR No. 6 / 12357 /03 Dated 26.06.2003 : With an objective to improve the standard of disclosures in advertisements, effective implementation of regulatory intent and to remove difficulties in the application of Regulations, guidelines have been issued after consultation with AMFI, in accordance with Regulation 77 of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996.
Circular No. SEBI/MFD/CIR No. 05 / 12031 /03 Dated 23.06.2003 : It is clarified that consolidation of schemes shall be viewed as changes in fundamental attributes of the related schemes and the mutual funds shall comply with the requirements laid down in the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, for the purpose.
Further, with a view to ensure that all important disclosures are made to the investors of the concerned schemes and their interests are protected in such cases, the mutual funds shall take the steps prescribed.
Regulations
Notification No. SO696(E) Dated 16.06.2003 : (i) In sub-clause (viii), after the first proviso, the following has been inserted,
"Provided further that where the stock broker has a minimum net worth of Rupees Ten Crore, the limits on the aggregate value of the portfolio of securities of the beneficial owners held in dematerialized form in a depository through him shall not be applicable."
(ii) In sub-clause (x), for the figure and words "Rs. 50 lakhs" the words "Rupees ten
crores" have been substituted.
Press Release
Press Release No. PR 146/2003 Dated 24.06.2003 : It has been decided to streamline the procedure for seeking guidance from SEBI by intermediaries and listed companies about the applicability of Acts, rules, regulations and circulars administered by
SEBI.
|
|
Department of
Company Affairs
|
|
Notification No. GSR479(E) Dated 12.06.2003 : In the existing rule 5-C, the following new clause (4) has been inserted.
"(4) The debt equity ratio for listed Housing Finance Companies for the purposes of clause (d) of Subsection (2) of Section 77A shall be such as may be specified by the National Housing Bank being the regulator, in consultation with the Central Government."
Notification No. SO715(E) Dated 19.06.2003 : Central Government has appointed the 19th June, 2003, as the date on which the specified sections of the said Act, shall come into force.
|
|
CBDT
|
|
Notification No. 156/03 Dated 18.06.2003 : In the Income-tax (23rd Amendment) Rules, 2002, in Rule 1, in sub-rule (2), for the words "they shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 2002", the words "they shall come into force on the 6th day of September, 2002."
have been substituted.
Order No. Dated 17.06.2003 : Central Board of Direct Taxes, has ordered that the due date for filing of returns of income for assessment year 2003-04, within the meaning of Explanation 2(c) to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been extended from 31st day of July, 2003 to 30th day of September, 2003.
Notification No. 145/2003 to No. 154/2003 Dated 13.06.2003 : The following Institutions have been specified under section 35AC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Uttar Pradesh Parents Association for the Welfare of Mentally Handicapped Citizens Specified U/S 35AC(1)
ALERT-INDIA Specified U/S 35AC(1)
Shree Kalyan Arogya Sadan Specified U/S 35AC(1)
Umeed Khanna Health Care Project Specified U/S 35AC(1)
Mahavir Heart Research Foundation Specified U/S 35AD(1)
Lok Kalyan Samiti Specified U/A 35AC(1)
Maria Seva Sangha Specified U/S 35AC(1)
Shri Sadguru Seva Sangh Trust Specified U/S 35AC(1)
Brahmavetta Shree Devaraha Hans Baba Trust Specified 35AC(1)
Vaso Arogya Mandal Specified U/S 35AC(1)
|
|
CBEC Excise Tariff
|
|
Notification No. 56/2003 Dated 25.06.2003 : Central Government has exempted the goods specified and cleared from a unit located in the State of Sikkim, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
Circular No. 724/40/2003-CX Dated 20.06.2003 : Certain doubts have been raised by manufacturers of Bicycle Tube Valve (sub-heading Nos. 8481.20 & 8481.92) and Bicycle Spoke Nipples (heading No. 87.14), which are fully exempt under notification No. 10/2003-Central Excise, dated 01.03.2003, regarding admissibility of the exemption under notification Nos. 83/94-CE and 84/94-CE both dated 11.4.94. The matter has been examined. If the castings, so received from the job workers’ end, are used in the manufacture of the aforesaid specified final products, namely valves (sub-heading Nos. 8481.20 and 8481.92) and nipples (heading No. 87.14), the exemption would be available, notwithstanding the fact that some waste and scrap is generated in the process.
Notification No. 53/2003 Dated 17.06.2003 : Central Government has exempted cars for physically handicapped persons, falling under heading No. 87.03 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), from the whole of the National Calamity Contingent duty leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 136 of the said Finance Act, 2001 read with section 169 of the said Finance Act, 2003.
|
|
CBEC Exice non Tariff
|
|
Notification No. 57/2003 NT Dated 25.06.2003 : 1. In ru1e 3, in sub-ru1e (3), third proviso has been substituted.
2. Rule 10 relating to Special dispensation in respect of inputs manufactured in factories located in specified areas of North East region, Kutch district of Gujarat, State of Jammu and Kashmir and State of Sikkim, has been substituted.
Notification No. 56/2003 NT Dated 17.06.2003 : In the said notification, in paragraph 1, condition (iv) has been omitted.
|
|
CBEC Customs Tariff
|
|
Circular No. 57/2003 Dated 27.06.2003 : It is clarified that the term 'Cellular Phone' in notification no. 21/2002 Cus (Sl. 313) dated 1.3.2002 covers only hand held mobile phones working on cellular technology. This notification does not cover either fixed wireless terminals or fixed wireless telephones working on cellular technology.
Circular No. 56/2003 Dated 27.06.2003 : It is clarified that no customs duty or anti-dumping duty should be charged on the amount of Coke Breeze cleared from the factory. However, if the amount of coke breeze is more than 5%, the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner concerned should enquire into it and take decision on merits.
Circular No. 55/2003 Dated 25.06.2003 : Feedback has been received from the field formations that SS Nos.73.28, 73.29, 73.30 and 73.31 of the Drawback Schedule, 2003-2004, are being misused by the unscrupulous exporters who are manipulating the description of the goods to derive undue higher benefits which are not intended by the Government. Therefore, in the interest of the revenue, it has been decided to delete these entries from the Duty Drawback Schedule, 2003-2004 with effect from 1st July, 2003
Circular No. 54/2003 Dated 25.06.2003 : With reference to Customs Notification No.84/2003 dated 27.5.2003, which brought amendments to various
notifications, stipulating that in those cases where the goods are delivered for exports
through any Inland Container Depot specified in those notifications, exports would be permitted through the Sea-ports at Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kandla, Chennai or Kolkata. Representations have, however, been received from the trade that the above mentioned stipulation is causing serious difficulties to the exporters who are exporting through ICDs.
It has been decided that in view of the problems being faced by the exporters, this stipulation should be removed. Accordingly, an amending Customs notification No.97/2003 dated 25.6.2003 has been issued whereby the provisos containing this stipulation in the various notifications introduced vide Customs notification no.84/2003 shall be omitted. Henceforth, the export goods received from Inland Container Depots shall be allowed to be shipped from any of the notified Sea-ports.
Circular No. 53/2003 Dated 23.06.2003 : The international certification scheme for rough diamonds entitled: “Kimberley Process Certification Scheme” was adopted in a Ministerial meeting held at Interlaken, Switzerland, on 5th November, 2002. India is a signatory to the Interlaken Declaration. The Scheme has been evolved to deal with the issue of conflict diamonds which are basically rough diamonds whose trade is prohibited by the United Nations Security Council because, the proceeds of that trade are used by rebel movements and their allies to finance conflicts aimed at undermining legitimate governments. It has been specified that in order to comply with the requirements of KPCS, each shipment of rough diamonds on import and export has to be accompanied with a KP Certificate and the procedure for implementation of scheme shall be as specified.
Circular No. 51/2003 Dated 18.06.2003 : The Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce have brought to the notice of the Board that there is lot of confusion about export data compilation in the field formations of Customs, as a result of which, the DGCI&S is facing problem in compiling the statistical data for the entire country. Though import data is being complied on the basis of revised 8 digit HS Code, there is no uniformity on compilation of export data. The matter has been examined by the Board
and certain decisions have been taken.
Notification No. 94/2003 Dated 17.06.2003 : Central Government has rescinded the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Revenue), No. 78/2002-Customs, dated the 13th August, 2002, published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section
(i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated the 13th August, 2002 vide No.
G.S.R. 556(E), dated the 13th August, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
|
|
Service Tax
|
|
Notification No. 14/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government, has exempted the taxable services provided to any person by a mandap keeper for the use of the precincts of a religious place as a mandap, from the service tax leviable thereon, under section 66 of the said Act.
Notification No. 13/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government has exempted the business auxiliary services provided by a commission agent from the service tax leviable thereon.
Notification No. 12/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government, has exempted so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service tax leviable thereon under section (66) of the said Act, subject to condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials.
Notification No. 11/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government, has exempted that portion of the taxable services provided to a customer by any person in relation to maintenance or repair, under a maintenance contract or agreement in relation to maintenance or repair of any goods or equipment excluding motor vehicle, which was entered into prior to the 1st day of July, 2003, from the service tax leviable thereon.
Notification No. 10/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government, has exempted the taxable services provided by a commercial training or coaching centre, in relation to commercial training or coaching, which form an essential part of a course or curriculum of any other institute or establishment, leading to issuance of any certificate or diploma or degree or educational qualification recognised by law for the time being in force, to any person, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon
Notification No. 9/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government has exempted the taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching, by,-
(a). a vocational training institute
(b). a computer training institute; or
(c). a recreational training institute;
to any person, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon.
Notification No. 8/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government has exempted the taxable services provided, by a call centre or a medical transcription centre, to a client from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon
Notification No. 7/2003 Dated 20.06.2003 : Central Government has appointed the 1st day of July 2003, as the date from which the service tax shall be levied under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the said Finance Act.
|
|
Department of Economic
Affairs
|
|
Notification No. SO724(E) Dated 24.06.2003 : In the Insurance Rules, 1939, in rule 59, after clause (m), the following clause has been inserted, namely:--
"(n) Policies of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme.--The subsidy in premium due from Central Government or State Governments or Union Territories shall be deemed to have been duly paid, if paid in full, before the settlement of the claim."
|
|
RBI
|
|
Circular No. A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.108 Dated 21.06.2003 : As a part of developing the derivative market in India and adding to the spectrum of hedge products available to residents and non-residents for hedging currency exposures, it has been decided to permit foreign currency – rupee options with effect from July 7, 2003, subject to conditions.
Circular No. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 107 Dated 19.06.2003 : In order to reflect the procedural modifications effected and liberalisation measures initiated in the sphere of overseas direct investment in the recent past, amendments have been made to the Form ODA and detailed instructions have been given for filling forms ODA, ODI, ODB & ODG
Circular No. A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 106 Dated 19.06.2003 : Annexure to A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 9 dated August 24, 2000 contains directions to be followed by authorised dealers while dealing with applications relating to import of goods into India. With a view to liberalising and simplifying the procedure for import, existing guidelines have been reviewed and the revised directions are laid down in the Annexure to this circular.
Notification No. DBS.FID No.C-16 /01.02.00/2002-03 Dated 20.06.2003 : It has been decided to bring about the following changes in the existing reporting requirements by the FIs :-
(a) The submission of the monthly concurrent audit report to RBI should be discontinued, with immediate effect;
(b) With effect from the half-year ended March 31, 2003 the half-yearly reviews of the investment portfolio of the FIs should be submitted to the Regional Offices of the Department of Banking Supervision (DBS), within whose jurisdiction the Head Office of the FI concerned is located, instead of being submitted to this Division as hitherto; and
(c) The major irregularities observed in the concurrent audit report of the treasury transactions as also the position of compliance therewith should be incorporated in the half-yearly reviews of the investment portfolio to be submitted to the Regional Offices of the DBS
Notification No. DBOD.BC.Leg. No.113 / 09.12.001/ 2002-03 Dated 26.06.2003 : Pursuant to the investigation by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (the JPC) into the Stock Market Scam, the JPC has recommended (in para 5.214 of its report ) that "specific guidelines need to be issued by the Reserve Bank to all banks regarding the procedure to be followed by them in respect of dishonoured cheques from Stock Exchanges." In the light of aforesaid recommendations of the JPC, the extant instructions relating to return of all dishonoured cheques have been reviewed.
It is suggested that in addition to the existing instruction in respect of dishonoured instruments for want of funds, banks may follow the additional instructions laid down in para 4 of this circular which could cover all cheques dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and not only those relating to settlement transactions of Stock Exchanges.
-
Fortnightly report on loans and advances granted by UCBs to their directors, etc., up to September 30, 2003
Notification No. BPD. Cir. 55 /13.05.00/2002-03 Dated 26.06.2003 : It is reiterated that the loans and advances (both secured and unsecured), if any, granted to directors, etc. should strictly and scrupulously comply with all the guidelines issued by RBI for extension of loans and advances by UCBs. Further, loans and advances (both secured and unsecured) if any, granted by UCBs to directors, their relatives and the firms / concerns / companies in which they are interested, should also confirm to the prudential ceiling of 5 per cent of the bank’s demand and time liabilities (DTL) stipulated in circular No. UBD.DIR. 3 / 13.05.00 /2002-03 dated December 4, 2002.
Notification No. BPD.Cir.54 /13.05.00/2002-03 Dated 24.06.2003 : Keeping in view the representations received by RBI to provide some more time, it is advised that the instructions contained in Circular No. UBD.No. BPD.Cir.50/13.05.00/2002-03 dated April 29, 2003 would become effective from October 1, 2003.
Press Release No. 2002-2003/1328 Dated 28.06.2003 : In view of its strong balance of payments (BoP) and comfortable foreign exchange reserves position, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has selected India to become a member of its Financial Transaction Plan (FTP) from the quarter September-November, 2002. The IMF selects countries with strong BoP and foreign exchange reserves position for contributing to the FTP. These countries help the IMF finance the balance of payments needs of other countries. Selection of India as member of the FTP, for the first time by IMF, sends strong signals regarding the country’s strength and resilience of its external sector to the international community.
Public Notice No. 14/2002-07 Dated 25.06.2003 : DGFT has made amendments in the Handbook of Procedures.
Notification No. 13(RE-2003)/2002-2007 Dated 20.06.2003 : The following note has been added at the end of Appendix III to Schedule 1 (IMPORTS) of ITC(HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items:
"Note: Consequent upon rescission of the DIPP order(s) dated 24.04.89 and 24.02.93 issued under the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995, the items listed at sl.no. 69 –76 above in the appendix shall stand deleted."
|
|
Department of Commerce
|
|
Notification No. 18/1/2000-DGAD, Notification No. 15/1/2003-DGAD Dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 14/7/2003-DGAD Dated 17.06.2003 :
Final Findings on Mid-Term Review of Anti-Dumping Duty Concerning Imports of Strontium Carbonate from People's Republic of China, have been published.
Sunset Review Regarding Anti-Dumping Duty Imposed on Calcium Carbide Originating in or Exported from China and Romania, has been initiated.
Anti-Dumping Investigations Concerning Import of Coated Paper Including Paper and Paperboard of 80 GSM and Above Originating in or Exported from Indonesia and European Union, have been initiated.
|
|
Department of Consumer Affairs
|
|
Notification No. GSR495 Dated 17.06.2003 : In the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, in rule 6, in sub-rule (1), in proviso (C), for item (vii), the following item has been substituted,
"(vii) any package containing bidis for a period of one year as and from the date of commencement of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2003".
1.
Order No. GSR490(E) Dated 16.06.2003 : 1. In clause 2, definition of dealor has been substituted.
2. In clause 3 of the said Order, for the words " and edible oils" the following has been substituted, ", edible oils, pulses, gur, wheat products (namely maida, rava, suji, atta, resultant atta and bran) and hydrogenated vegetable oil or vanaspati."
3. Clause 7 has been added
|
|
Department of Health
|
|
Notification No. GSR497(E) Dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. GSR489(E) Dated 16.06.2003 : Draft of certain rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, have been published for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby, and notice has been given that the said draft rules will be taken into consideration after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date on which the copies of
the Official Gazette in which this notification is published, are made available to the public;
Notification No. SO704(E) Dated 18.06.2003 : Central Government has appointed the 18th June, 2003 as the date on which the said Act shall come into force.
Notification No. GSR485(E) and No. GSR486(E) Dated 13.06.2003 : Central Government has issued the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 2003. |
|
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting |
|
Notification No. GSR459(E) Dated 06.06.2003 : After Rule 8, Rule 9 relating to Manner of publicizing the subscription rates of pay channels, Rule 10 relating to Submission of Report to the Central Government, Rule 11 relating to Declaration of channels as "free-to-air" and 'pay', Rule 12 relating to Responsibility of cable operators in certain event and Rule 13 Provisions for set top boxes, have been inserted alongwith Form 6 which pertains to Form of Report for submission to the central government by the cable operator. |
|
Press Information Bureau
|
|
Dated 25.06.2003 : Shri Pratap Vishnu Hardas and Shrimati Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani,have been appointed to be Additional Judges of Bombay High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years each with effect from June 26, 2003.
Dated 22.06.2003 : The government will hold extensive consultations with the industry on issues relating to the ongoing non-agricultural market access negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) before finalising its stand. This was indicated by Shri Arun Jaitley, Minister of Commerce and Industry and Law and Justice, in his intervention at the Session on Non-Agricultural Market Access at the informal WTO Ministerial Meeting at Sharm-El-Sheikh in Egypt
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer |
|
(1) While all reasonable care has
been taken to ensure that the information provided in the "round
up" and on the website is fair and accurate the company and its
promoters and employees shall not in any way be responsible for
the consequences of any action taken on the basis of reliance
upon the contents of this "round up". |
|
(2) This is not a
Spam mail. You have received this mail because you have either
requested for it or someone must have suggested your name under
our various referral programs. Since India has no anti-spamming
law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail
cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact
information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't
concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing
list.
Feedback
|
|
