Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Relcon Infraprojects Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai on 6 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. C/1118/12-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 727/MCH/AC/Gr. VA/NCH/2012 dated 17.8.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri P. Patankar, Consultant, for appellant Shri M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 6.2.2014 Date of Decision: 6.2.2014 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Wirtgen Slipform Paver Model SP 500 and claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. at serial No.230. The benefit of the Notification is denied on the ground that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification as the appellant is not executing a contract for construction of road under Road Construction Corporation.
4. The appellant produced certificates which were issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).
5. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is already settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shreeji Construction vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2013-TIOL-441-CESTAT-MUM, whereby the Tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit of the Notification where the contract was awarded to the importer by MMRDA. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the provisions of the Notification and the principles and objects of MMRDA, held in favour of the Revenue and we find no ground to take a contrary view. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3