9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment, thereby creating a judicial uncertainty with regard to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same Exemption Notification. - If a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, the propriety demands that it should place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that the case is referred to a larger Bench, for which provision exists in the Act itself - Decided against the assessee. - 5166 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2011 - D.K. JAIN, H.L. DATTU, JJ. JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. This Civil Appeal, under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act"), is directed against order dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, as it then existed, (for short "the Tribunal"), in Appeal No. C/298/02-Mum. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 17/2001/Cus (General Exemption No. 121), issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for construction of roads. However, the said exemption was subject to certain conditions, enumerated in the said notification. Condition No. 38, relevant for this case, reads as follows: "38. If,- (a) the goods are imported by- (i) the ministry of Surface Transport, or (ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by the Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory; or (iii) a person who has been named as a sub-contractor in the contract referred to in (ii) above for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory; (b) the importer, at the time of importation, furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Atlanta JV. Thus, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellant was 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 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that Gammon having been nominated as the lead partner in the joint venture for due performance of the contract awarded by NHAI, with authority to incur liabilities and to receive instructions for and on behalf of the joint venture, and the machine having been imported on behalf of the joint venture for the purpose of road construction, the benefit of the said exemption notification could not be denied to the appellant. Inter-alia, observing that the appellant was not an outsider and perhaps due to some technical reasons the machine had been imported in the name of the appellant, the Commissioner held that outright denial of the benefit of the said notification was not warranted. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal. 8. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue carried t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus fulfilling condition No.38 of the Exemption Notification. Learned counsel asserted that since in identical fact situations in the cases of IVRCL Infrastructures Projects Ltd. Vs. C.C., Chennai (Sea) 2004 (166) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Del.) and Techni Bharathi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-II2006 (198) E.L.T. 33 (Tri.-Bang.) , when machinery for a road project was imported by one of the constituents' of the joint venture, the benefit of the same Exemption Notification had been granted by the Tribunal. It was argued that the said orders of the Tribunal having been accepted by the revenue, it cannot be permitted to take a different stand on the same point in the case of the appellant. Lastly, relying on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal Co. (2011) 2 SCC 74: 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) , learned counsel submitted that a beneficial and promotional exemption notification has to be construed liberally. 11. Per contra, Mr. Harish Chander, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, supporting the decision of the Tribunal, submitted that the joint venture and Gammon being two independent entities, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntatives of Gammon and Atlanta and neither party would be entitled to borrow for or on behalf of the joint venture or to acknowledge any liability without express prior consent in writing of the other party except to the extent of its share of work; Gammon being most experienced party would be the lead partner of the joint venture for the performance of the contract; the partner-incharge would be authorized to incur liabilities and to receive instructions for and on behalf of the partners of the joint venture, whether jointly or severally, and entire execution of the contract including receiving payment would be carried out exclusively through the partner-incharge but any financial commitment required by the lead partner, on behalf of the joint venture, would always be previously discussed and agreed upon by the parties. As stated above, though under agreement dated 18th September, 2000, Gammon was notified as the lead partner but agreement dated 20th December, 2000 executed between NHAI as the "employer" and Gammon-Atlanta JV as "contractor" was signed by the representatives of both the companies viz. Gammon and Atlanta, meaning thereby that so far as NHAI was concerned, for them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the decision of the Department of Telecommunications. The said writ petition was dismissed rejecting the plea of the NHL that the technical experience of the constituents of the joint venture was liable to be treated as that of the joint venture. NHL brought the matter to this Court. Explaining the concept of joint venture in detail, it was held that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contributed assets and shared risks. It was observed that a joint venture could take the form of a Corporation wherein two or more persons or companies might join together. Accordingly, the appeal of NHL was allowed and it was held that it was a joint venture company in the nature of a partnership between the Indian group of companies and Singapore based company which had jointly undertaken the commercial venture by contributing assets and sharing risks. Applying the principle of "lifting the corporate veil", it was held that the joint venture comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction of goods in India by NHAI? 19.In support of his submission that the joint venture is a "person" as contemplated in the Exemption notification, learned counsel for Gammon had relied on the definition of the word "person" as given in para 3.37 of the Export and Import policy for the year 1997-2002. It reads thus: "3.37-"Person" includes an individual, firm, society, company, corporation or any other legal person". 20. The argument was that since a joint venture has been declared to be a legal entity in New Horizons (supra), it squarely falls within the ambit 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 further. Neither was it the case of the appellant either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Appellate Authority or before us, nor is it suggested by the documents viz. the supply order or the bill of entry, that the import of the machine was by or on behalf of the joint venture. On the contrary, the Tribunal has recorded in its order that when questioned, learned counsel for the appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption." 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 Notification is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the interpretative process in order to determine whether the said condition is to be imparted strict or liberal construction. 24. Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep concern on the conduct of the two Benches of the Tribunal deciding appeals in the cases of IVRCL Infrastructures Projects Ltd. (supra) Techni Bharathi Ltd. (supra). After noticing the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the present case, they still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment, thereby creating a judicial uncertainty with regard to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same Exemption Notification. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
