Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the importer was entitled, for the purpose of stay, to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Serial No. 203) on the basis that the contract was awarded by the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, and whether the Revenue had made out a case for stay of the impugned order.
Analysis: The notification required that the importer be awarded a road construction contract by specified authorities or by a road construction corporation under the control of a State or Union Territory government. On the material available, the Tribunal noted that the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority was a body corporate with the power to contract and that road construction was part of its infrastructure function. The Tribunal further observed that infrastructure within Mumbai included streets and roads, and that the contract in question was entered into with that authority. On a prima facie assessment, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)' view to be sustainable and held that the Revenue had not established grounds warranting stay.
Conclusion: The prima facie entitlement to the notification benefit was upheld for the purpose of stay, and the request for stay was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of interim relief, a body corporate entrusted with road and infrastructure functions may prima facie satisfy a notification condition requiring a corporation empowered to construct roads.