M/S. Gammon India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai

2. Briefly stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal, are as follows:

ting up of a management board consisting of a Chairman and one Direc-

3. The bid tendered by the said joint venture was accepted by NHAI and an agreement dated 20th December, 2000 was executed between NHAI, referred to as the "Employer" on the one part and M/s Gam-

ported the specified Concrete Batching Plant from Germany and filed Bill of Entry (for home consumption) for its clearance at `nil' rate of duty under Notification No.17/2001-cus, dated 1st March, 2001. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, by his order dated 5th October, 2001 rejected the claim of the appellant for exemption from payment of Customs duty on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated at Serial No. 38 appended to the exemp-

ed in the name of joint venture - M/s Gammon-Atlanta JV. Thus, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellant was 5 not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification in their capacity as a partner in the joint venture, to whom the contract had been awarded.

7. Aggrieved thereby the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commis-

ranted. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal.

ed that the decision of the Tribunal did not warrant any interference and the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

bit of the said definition of the word "person". We are of the opinion that even if the stated stand on behalf of the appellant is accepted, mercifully, on stark facts at hand, it does not carry their case any fur-

21. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that import of "Concrete batching plant 56 cum/hr" by Gammon cannot be considered as an import by M/s Gammon-Atlanta JV, "a person" who had been awarded contract for construction of the roads in India and therefore, neither Gammon Atlanta JV nor Gammon fulfill the requisite requirement stipulated in Condition No.38 of the Exemption Notification No. 17/2001/Cus dat-

ed 1st March, 2001.

23.Applying the above principles, we are of the opinion that since in the instant case the language of condition No.38 in the Exemption Notifi-

cation is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the inter-

pretative process in order to determine whether the said condition is to be imparted strict or liberal construction.

volved on an identical issue in respect of the same Exemption Notifi-

cation. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a Tribunal, in identical fact-situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly 1 opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the Tribunal on earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integri-

Inspector Rooplal & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors.8 are quite appo-

site :

We respectfully concur with these observations and are confident that all the Courts and various Tribunals in the country shall follow these salutary observations in letter and spirit.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the Tribunal, hold-

ing that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Exemption no-

tification No. 17/2001-Cus dated 1st March, 2001, cannot be flawed.

The appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed accordingly, with costs, quantified at `50,000/-.

JULY 6, 2011.

RS 2 2