<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (5) TMI 129 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259255</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for stay 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. The Tribunal cited a previous case involving IBM India Pvt. Ltd., where a similar stay application was rejected, emphasizing the lack of expert advice in the original decision and the comprehensive evaluation conducted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to present a strong case for a stay and affirmed the rejection based on the precedent set in the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2015 07:40:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 129 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259255</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for stay 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. The Tribunal cited a previous case involving IBM India Pvt. Ltd., where a similar stay application was rejected, emphasizing the lack of expert advice in the original decision and the comprehensive evaluation conducted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to present a strong case for a stay and affirmed the rejection based on the precedent set in the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>