2018 (5) TMI 1247 - AT - Customs

Exemption to goods imported under N/N. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230 - Interpretation of statute - case of Revenue is that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Notification No. 21/2002 by construing that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government. Held that - the contracts awarded by MMRDA do not qualify for the exemption. In the case of Rajhoo Barot Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Mumbai) 2015 (2) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the Larger Bench of the Tribunal considered the case of Shreeji Construction 2013 (4) TMI 654 - CESTAT MUMBAI and held that the decision of Tribunal in the case of Shreeji Construction is directly dealing with the dispute in the present proceeding. It was held that MMRDA is not a road construction corporation within the scope and context of condition NO. 40(a). This conclusion was arrived at after careful and detailed analysis of the constitutional and organizational architecture of MMRDA and on a critical analysis of the constitutional and generic statutory functions entrusted to MMRDA. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled ab initio for the benefit of the Notification 21/2002-Cus. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230.
2. Eligibility of Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) for exemption under the said notification.
3. Comparison of MMRDA with road construction corporations.
4. Applicability of judicial precedents in interpreting the notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230, specifically whether MMRDA qualifies as a "road construction corporation" under the control of the State Government. The notification grants exemption to entities involved in road construction, including those awarded contracts by specific authorities like the Ministry of Surface Transport, National Highway Authority of India, Public Works Department of State Governments, or road construction corporations under the control of State Governments or Union Territories.

2. Eligibility of MMRDA for Exemption:
The appellant (Revenue) argued that MMRDA, established under the MMRDA Act, 1974, is a corporate body and not a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government. The respondent contended that MMRDA should be considered a road construction corporation under the State Government's control, thus eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal, however, referenced previous judgments, emphasizing a strict interpretation of the notification's language, which does not explicitly include MMRDA as a road construction corporation.

3. Comparison of MMRDA with Road Construction Corporations:
The Tribunal examined the legal and functional distinctions between MMRDA and road construction corporations. It was highlighted that MMRDA is a local authority created under a separate statute, while road construction corporations are typically State Government undertakings registered under the Companies Act. The Tribunal noted that MMRDA's functions extend beyond road construction to include metropolitan development activities such as transportation, water resources management, and urban land policy, distinguishing it from road construction corporations focused solely on road construction and maintenance.

4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal relied on the decision in Shreeji Construction Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, which clarified that the notification differentiates between Metropolitan Development Authorities and road construction corporations. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications. The principle of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" was applied, meaning the express mention of "road construction corporation" excludes other entities like Metropolitan Development Authorities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that MMRDA does not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230, as it is not a road construction corporation but a Metropolitan Development Authority with broader functions. The appeal of Revenue was allowed, and the exemption was denied to MMRDA based on the strict interpretation of the notification and relevant judicial precedents. The judgment was pronounced in court on 18.05.2018.

← Previous Next →