9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 129 - AT - CustomsBenefit of exemption Notification No. 12/12-CE dated 01.03.2012 - Held that - Respondents imported external Hard Disc Drives and filed various Bills of Entry during the month of April and May, 2013. They claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/12-CE dated 01.03.2012 (S. No. 255) under Customs Tariff 84717020. The adjudicating authority held that the respondents are not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Tribunal in the case of CC (Acc & Import), Mumbai Vs. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (1) TMI 984 - CESTAT MUMBAI , on the identical situation, rejected the stay application filed by the Revenue. - following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 984 - CESTAT MUMBAI), we reject the application filed by the Revenue.
Issues:
Application for stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/12-CE dated 01.03.2012 for imported external Hard Disc Drives. Analysis: The Revenue filed an application for stay of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the eligibility of exemption for imported external Hard Disc Drives under Customs Tariff 84717020. The respondents had imported the drives and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 12/12-CE dated 01.03.2012. The adjudicating authority initially denied the exemption, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving IBM India Pvt. Ltd. where the stay application filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority did not seek expert advice and made a decision without proper evaluation. The Commissioner (Appeals), on the other hand, considered various factors before reaching a conclusion. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not made a strong case for granting a stay and rejected the application based on the precedent set in the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. case. The respondents confirmed that they had paid the duty under protest and had not filed any refund claim. Based on the discussion and the decision in the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for stay. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notification covered both removable and non-removable hard disc drives under the six-digit classification, highlighting the lack of observation by the lower authorities on this crucial issue. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court, affirming the rejection of the Revenue's application.
|
