2014 (5) TMI 902 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-7-2002 - Non fulfillment of conditions of Notification - Held that - Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. prescribes exemption on road construction equipment imported by certain category of importers and the person to be eligible for the benefit has to satisfy the Condition No. 40 - to claim the benefit of the exemptions, the appellant should have been named as sub-contractor in the contract awarded by NHAI to M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co. Ltd. Since, the appellant has not been named as sub-contractor in the contract awarded by NHAI to M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co. Ltd., the appellant does not satisfy the condition of the eligibility - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal initially sought condonation of delay in filing, which was allowed. The appellant requested early hearing due to a prior Tribunal decision on the same issue. Despite delays and requests for adjournment, the case proceeded for final hearing.

Eligibility for Exemption:
The appellant, M/s. Gammon India Limited, filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The exemption required fulfillment of Condition No. 40, which specified that the goods should be imported by specific entities or named sub-contractors in contracts awarded by NHAI. The appellant failed to demonstrate being named as a sub-contractor in the contract awarded to Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co. Ltd., leading to denial of the exemption by the lower authorities.

Precedent and Arguments:
The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision involving a similar matter with the same contractor, where the appellant was also not named as a sub-contractor and was denied the exemption. The appellant contended that the facts were identical in the present case.

Revenue's Position:
The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings and referenced the previous Tribunal decision, asserting that the appellant would not be eligible for the exemption based on the established precedent.

Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., emphasizing the requirement for the appellant to be named as a sub-contractor in the contract awarded by NHAI to avail the exemption. Since the appellant did not meet this condition, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

This detailed analysis underscores the significance of meeting specific conditions for claiming exemptions under relevant notifications and highlights the importance of precedent in determining eligibility for such benefits.