9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue. - C/967 & 968/09 - Mum - - - Dated:- 31-5-2013 - Ashok Jindal And S K Gaule, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M H Patil, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Amand Shah, Addl. Commr. (AR) PER : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein the benefit of Notification No.21/2002 (sl.no.230) has been denied which resulted in confiscation of the imported machines and demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the appellant firm and penalty on the Managing Director. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. 2. Heard both sides. The contention of the appellants is that they have complied with the conditions of the Notification cited herein above particularly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, a certificate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer of the National Highways Authority of India, to the effect that the imported goods are required for construction of roads in India. 3. The issue before us is whether MMRDA is a Road Construction Corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory or not. 4. It is the contention of the ld. counsel Shri M.H.Patil that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. Ors. In Appeal Nos. C.158, 285 to 287, 291, 428 to 432/2009 and vide order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Corporation or not and thereafter this tribunal has come to the conclusion that MMRDA is not a Road Construction Corporation as required by Condition No. 40(a) of the above said Notification. 7. As there are divergent views of this tribunal, therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI - 2010 (252) E.L.T. 168 (Bom) and in the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai, whereby both the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Mumbai High Court has observed that when there are divergent views of this tribunal on the same issue, instead of deciding the issue, the tribunal should refer the matter to the Hon'ble President for constitution of Larger Bench. Therefore, we refer this m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
