9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitutional 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. - Appeal No. C/784/08 - ORDER NO. A/86416/2018 - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon ble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. P.V. Sekhar, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Prashant Patankar, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by Revenue against allowing exemption to goods imported under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Sr. No. 230. 2. Learned AR argued 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. It was argued that the MMRDA is a corporate body, incorporated under the MMRDA Act, 1974. He pointed out that condition No. 40 (ii) of Notification No. 21/2002 Sr. No. 230 grant exemption reads as under: A person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tan Development Authority or a road construction corporation under the control of State Government or Union Territory. From this it is clear that the Notification differentiates between a Metropolitan Development Authority and a Road construction corporation. Otherwise there was no need to specify both these agencies as the persons who can award the contract for the purpose of the Notification. If the intention was to consider Metropolitan Development Authority as a Road construction corporation, the language used would have been different - for e.g. a road construction corporation including a Metropolitan Development Authority or by way of an explanation. That has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, we are of the view that the notification considers a Metropolitan Development Authority and a Road development construction as distinct and different entities. 5.3 This view is further strengthened for the reason that in the State of Maharashtra there is a separate corporation, namely, the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation. There are such corporations in other States also, for e.g. in Gujarat, Rajasthan and so on. If one carefully examines the creation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nguage, the definite article THE is used when both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener know what is being referred to. If neither of them knows or only one of them knows what is being referred to, then the indefinite articles A or AN are used. Since there are many States/UTs in India which have their own Road Development Corporations, instead of specifying all of them individually, the expression a State Road Development Corporation has been used prefixed by the indefinite article A . That by no means expand the scope of the expression road development corporation to cover a regional development authority as contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellant. 5.5 The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) was considering the scope of the said Notification 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 which was the predecessor to Notification No. 21/2002. In that case the contract was awarded to a joint venture consisting of Gammon India Ltd. and M/s. Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. each of them sharing financial responsibilities to the extent of 50% of the project value. The goods were imported by one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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. 5.6 If we apply these principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the term road construction corporation has to be strictly interpreted and the metropolitan regional development authority, which undertakes several activities apart from road construction, cannot be construed as a road construction corporation which is meant for construction of roads alone. 5.7 One of the cannons of statutory interpretation is Expressio unius est exclusio alterius - the express mention of one thing excludes all others. The express mention in the notification is road construction corporation which implies that others which are not road construction corporations stand excluded from the scope of the notification. Thus if one applies the above principle, it is evident that a Metropolitan Regional Development Authority does not come within the purview of the notification. 5.8 When the notification was re-issued in the budget 2012 to include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 988 (38) E.L.T. 564 (S.C.), the Hon ble Apex Court reiterated the same as follows : It is well settled that the meaning ascribed by the authority issuing the Notification, is a good guide of a contemporaneous exposition of the position of law. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in K.P. Varghese v. The Income Tax Officer. Ernakulam, [1982] 1 SCR 629. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a Statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of its enactment and since, by those whose duty has been to construe, execute and apply the same enactment. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we hold that prior to budget 2012, benefit of customs duty exemption on road construction equipment was not available in cases where the contract for such construction was awarded by a Metropolitan Development Authority. Thus the appellant in the present case is not eligible for the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. In view of above decision it is apparent that contracts awarded by MMRDA do not qualify for the exemption. Relyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
