2006 (1) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 132/2003, dated 26-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner (A), Mumbai-II holding that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 17/01-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 on the ground that the contract has been awarded for road construction by National Highway Authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion No. 17/2001-Cus., which has also held that the benefit cannot be denied by placing interpretation, which would defeat the purpose of granting the benefit of Notification. He submits that this judgment clearly applies to the facts of the case. 3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the appellant is required to be considered as a person who has been named as sub-contractor in the contra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X