TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Conditions Not Met for Customs Exemption</h1> <h3>GAMMON INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI-I</h3> GAMMON INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI-I - 2014 (301) E.L.T. 586 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.Condonation of Delay:The appeal initially sought condonation of delay in filing, which was allowed. The appellant requested early hearing due to a prior Tribunal decision on the same issue. Despite delays and requests for adjournment, the case proceeded for final hearing.Eligibility for Exemption:The appellant, M/s. Gammon India Limited, filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The exemption required fulfillment of Condition No. 40, which specified that the goods should be imported by specific entities or named sub-contractors in contracts awarded by NHAI. The appellant failed to demonstrate being named as a sub-contractor in the contract awarded to Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co. Ltd., leading to denial of the exemption by the lower authorities.Precedent and Arguments:The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision involving a similar matter with the same contractor, where the appellant was also not named as a sub-contractor and was denied the exemption. The appellant contended that the facts were identical in the present case.Revenue's Position:The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings and referenced the previous Tribunal decision, asserting that the appellant would not be eligible for the exemption based on the established precedent.Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., emphasizing the requirement for the appellant to be named as a sub-contractor in the contract awarded by NHAI to avail the exemption. Since the appellant did not meet this condition, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ultimately dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis underscores the significance of meeting specific conditions for claiming exemptions under relevant notifications and highlights the importance of precedent in determining eligibility for such benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
