9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing in the exemption notification to show that only machines used for construction activities should be given its benefit and not extended to machines for maintenance and repair activities. The machines listed in list 16 cover a whole gamut of road construction activity like, paver finisher, surface dressing eqp., kerb laying, bridge inspection unit, stone crushing plant, tunnel excavators etc and not to road laying equipment/ machines alone. The matter has been discussed elaborately at para 7 of the impugned order. Further machines at Sl. Nos.4 and 5 can also be used for repair and maintenance activities of roads. We hence do not find the impugned order to be erroneous on this ground. It is not Revenue s case that the said contract was not entered into with this authorized agency. The Respondent has explained that one of the conditions for bidding for the contract was that they should be in possession of a machine for carrying out the contracted work. Hence the contract could only have been applied for while possessing a machine, necessitating its prior import. We feel that it is impossible for every notification to perceive exhaustively situations and circumstances that may eme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Krishnanandh, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned AR representing Revenue stated that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper for the following reasons. One of the conditions, of the notification is that the importer should possess a contract for construction of roads. The contract/ agreement dated 20/03/2013 was not available with the Appellant when he filed the BE on 11/02/2013. Further the contract submitted by the importers is found to be only for Pothole filling on arterial and sub arterial roads. The circular dated 23/02/2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs in F No 345/17/2008-TRU distinguishing between road construction activities and repair / maintenance activities. 'Filling of potholes' is categorized as a repair/maintenance activity and is not covered as a road construction activity. Even though the Commissioner (Appeals) had clearly accepted that the impugned goods are not covered under the benefit of exemption he permitted the benefit of machines mentioned at Sl. No. 4 5 of List 16 appended to the said notification, when he should have concluded that the same are not eligible to claim the said not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or deep earth anchor (16) Mobile concrete pump placer of 90/120 cu m/hr capacity (17) Automatic asphalt extraction equipment (18) Fully automatic, hydraulically operated, pre-cast segment moulds (19) Hydraulic gantry crane of 100 tonnes capacity for launching truss (20) Skid steer loaders (21) Tunnel Excavation Lining Equipment s consisting of Drilling jumbos, Loaders, Excavators, Shotcrete machine and 3 stage crushers 4.1 The respondent claims that the impugned goods though mainly used for pothole patching purposes, can also function as small scale surface dresser (Chip spreader) and Crack filling equipment mentioned at Sl.No.4 5 of the list 16 appended to the said notification. As per the work order dated 20/03/2013 issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, the Annual Contract was issued for pothole filling including sealing of cracks on arterial roads in West Zone Package C . The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the supplier s technical write-up felt that the impugned goods are akin to the machines mentioned at Sl. No. 4 5 of the list 16 appended to the notification. This has been found fault with by Revenue for reasons cited above. 4.2 We find that Boards C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not take into consideration the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal's order in an identical issue in the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva as reported in (2013) TIOL 471 CESTAT (Mumbai). We must state at the outset, it is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what may logically follow from it (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra - (1968) 2 SCR 154 / CCE v. Alnoori Tobacco Products - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 135 (S.C.)). In the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai, a consignment of Electronic Sensor Paver Vogetel model super 1800-2 with AB 600-2 TV screen for laying bituminous pavement up to 9 M width along with accessories was imported and duty exemption claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002 vide Sl. No. 230 of the Table annexed to the said notification. The said notification vide List 18 (Sl. No. 2) granted duty exemption to Electronic paver finisher (with sensor device) for laying bituminous pavement 7 meter size and above subject to Condition No. 40. The said condition stipulated that the goods shall be importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
