TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. Heard. 2. There is no ground for staying operation of the impugned order. 3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceeds to decide the appeal on merits. 4. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide which he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 986 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 249 and also in Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 774 (T) = 2001(43) RLT 967. In both these cases, identical issue was involved and benefit of notification was allowed. The Commissioner has, by following the ratio of law laid down in both these cases, allowed the benefit of the notification in question to the respondents. 7. The learned JDR h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
