2013 (8) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. 2. Heard both sides. The contention of the appellants is that they have complied with the conditions of the Notification cited herein above particularly condition No.40(a) which is reproduced below:-    "40. If    (a) the goods are imported by -        (i) the Ministry of Surface Transport, or        (ii) a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by 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 Gove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether MMRDA is a Road Construction Corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory or not. 4. It is the contention of the ld. counsel Shri M.H.Patil that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. & Ors. In Appeal Nos. C.158, 285 to 287, 291, 428 to 432/2009 and vide order No. A/150 to 159/2012/CSTB/C.I dated 1.3.2012 the tribunal held that the MMRDA is a Road Construction Corporation and the said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the appellants have fulfilled the condition No. 40(a) of the Notification No.21/2002 (sl.no.230). 5. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the issue came up before this Tribu....