2015 (5) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e does not seem to be a correct way to decide the issue. On the other hand, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the nature of the goods in para 5 and has considered the circular issued by the Board and also the decision of the Tribunal, etc. before coming to the conclusion. Therefore, we do not find that the Department has made any case for granting stay in this case, Before taking a view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X