1998 (8) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .C. Sharma, Executive Officer, for the Respondents. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. Heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.C. Sharma, Executive Officer, on behalf of the respondents. We find that the Eastern Bench of the Tribunal at Calcutta in the case of respondents allowed the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. and dismissed the appeal filed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mstances of the cases. One of the items, for example, in the case of Peico Electronics and Electricals, was not exempt under the relevant Notification. However, in the present case, it is admitted to the Revenue that both the Fax Machine and Telephone Answering Machine were separately entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. There is, therefore, no reason not to extend the benefit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X