Strict construction of customs exemption denied pre-2012 road equipment relief to a Metropolitan Development Authority.

Notification No. 21/2002-Cus was construed strictly, and its exemption for road construction equipment did not extend by implication to a Metropolitan Development Authority. The text treated a road construction corporation under State or Union Territory control as a different entity, and the later insertion of Metropolitan Development Authority in Notification No. 12/2012-Cus showed an intended extension of coverage rather than a mere clarification. On that basis, a Metropolitan Development Authority was not covered by the earlier exemption entry and could not claim the customs duty benefit under the pre-Budget 2012 wording.

---

---

Issues: Whether, prior to Budget 2012, a Metropolitan Development Authority could be treated as a road construction corporation for availing customs duty exemption on road construction equipment under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Analysis: The exemption entry under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus covered goods imported by specified authorities or by a person awarded a road construction contract by those authorities, including a road construction corporation under the control of a State Government or Union Territory. The subsequent amendment in Notification No. 12/2012-Cus expressly added Metropolitan Development Authority, showing that the two expressions were intended to denote different entities. The notification had to be construed strictly, and the language did not permit expansion of the exemption by implication. The legislative materials supporting the 2012 amendment further indicated that the exemption was being extended to metropolitan development authorities, not merely clarified.

Conclusion: A Metropolitan Development Authority was not covered by the expression road construction corporation under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, and the appellant was not entitled to the exemption.

---