1998 (2) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Short question involved in these cases is whether Panasonic Fax Machine with answering system would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 59/88-Cus. The original authority denied the benefit of the said Notification. The respondents herein, however, succeeded before the lower appellate authority. The reasoning is given be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ied Customs Tariff published in 1993-94 as already mentioned by the appellants in the grounds of appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances and also the discussions made above the order of Assistant Collector denying benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 to the appellants is not correct. The impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and in the case of Johnson Johnson Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Bombay - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 560. 3. In spite of the fact that Notification No. 201/79 was denied to the appellants therein, the position being similar in the present case he submits that the appeal of the Revenue be allowed. 4. Shri A.K. Kar, Commercial Executive for the respondent firm, in the first instance prays for adjournment on the gro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X