TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority held that the appellant did not satisfy condition No.40 which stipulates that only a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by a or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, by the Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory is eligible for the exemption. Inasmuch as the person who awarded the contract was Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) which is a local authority and there is a separate Corporation for construction of roads in the State of Maharashtra, namely, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, hence the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the exemption. Accordingly, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It is against this order the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority has been constituted under Act No.IV of 1975. The said Act envisages establishmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of import of the goods. The learned AR further points out that Notification 21/2002 was re-issued in the budget 2012 and in the new notification No.12/2012, in addition to the National Highway Authority of India, Public Works Department,, and Road Construction Corporation. "Metropolitan Development Authority" was also specifically included. Therefore, it is clear that the notification distinguishes between a Metropolitan Development Authority and a Road Construction Corporation. Otherwise, there is no need to use these two expressions specifically and separately and, therefore, he contends that prior to Budget 2012, when Notification No.21/2002 was in force, benefit was not be available in case the contracts for road construction were awarded by MMRDA. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5.1 We reproduce below the relevant portion of the Notification No. 21/2002 as it existed and also after its suppression by Notification No. 12/2012 vide entry No. 368 of the said Notification. S. No. Chapter or Heading or sub - heading Description of goods Basic Duty of Customs Additional duty of Customs Condition No (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herwise 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 the road development corporations and their objectives, it can be seen that both legally and functionally, road development corporations and a metropolitan regional development authority are distinct entities. The major differences are summarized in the table below.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal 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. vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC) was considering the scope of the said Notification 17/2001-Cus dated 01/03/2001 which was the predecessor to Notification No. 21/2002. In the 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 the parties to the joint venture, namely, M/s Gammon India Ltd., who claimed exemption under Notification No.17/2001. The hon'ble apex Court held that import of the machinery by Gammon India Ltd. cannot be considered as an import by M/s Gammon-Atlanta Joint Venture. In that context the apex Court laid down the principle of interpreting the exemption Notification as under: 22. As regards the plea of the appellant that the Exemption Notification should receive a liberal construction to further the object underlying it, it is well settled that a provision providing for an exemption has to be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is meant for construction of roads alone. 5.7 One of the cannons of statutory interpretation is "Expressio unius est exclusion alterius" - the express mention of one thing excludes all others. The express mentioned 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 'metropolitan development authority', the same was mentioned specifically in the Finance Minister's budget speech as also in the Explanatory Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill. In para 187 of the Finance Minister's Budget Speech, it was stated as follows:- Roads 187. Full exemption from import duty on specified equipment imported for road construction by contractors of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. NHAI and State Government is being extended to contracts awarded by Metropolitan Development Authorit....