9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant herein M/s MEP Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. Reliance placed on the decison of the case of ITS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CHENNAI [2010 (10) TMI 149 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that appellants contractor in the contract between the Govt., of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation (TNRDC) and hence they are satisfying clause (a)(iii) of Condition No. 40 of notification no. 21/2002, and entitled for benefit of notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No. C/276/2005 - ORDER No.A/87946/16/CB - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd . and the appellant herein M/s MEP Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. The appellant herein is undoubtedly the contractor for collection of the toll who has sub-contracted the said activity to M/s MEP Toll Road Pvt Ltd . The appellant herein imported the toll barriers for installation on the said roads. We find that identical issue came to be before the Tribunal in the case of ITS Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2011 (263) ELT 318 (Tri.-Chennai) , the bench held by recording the following that the benefit of exemption Notification needs to be extended. 2. The appellants have been denied the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No. 230 as it has been held that they have not fulfilled Condition N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants who have undertaken the road construction work on behalf of TNRDC. Hence, we are of the view that the benefit of exemption under the impugned notification cannot be denied to the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellants. 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant as there is no dispute that the appellant is appointed as a contractor for collection of toll and the equipment imported by them finds mention in List No. 18 at Serial No. 9 of the exemption Notification serial No. 230 of 21/2002-Cus. 6. In view of the foregoing the impugned orders are unsustainable and are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
