TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso filed Cross-objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. The facts of the case are that the respondents viz. M/s. Gammon India Ltd. entered into a Concession Agreement between Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation and M/s. Rajamundry Godavari Bridge Ltd. and imported Hydraulically Operated Propelled Piling Rig Model No. HR 260. The respondents claimed exemption under Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002, Sr. No. 230. Revenue is of the view that as per the Concession Agreement the respondents are neither the contractor nor the sub-contractor. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of the exemption Notification cited hereinabove. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by denying the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sub-contractor in the project work assigned to them. The relevant portion of the said certificate is reproduced herein as under :- "It is further certified that M/s. Gammon India Limited will be the sub-contractor in this project working with the SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) Rajahmundry Godavari Bridge Limited. The concessionaire (The SPV Company) doing the design and construction of the major bridge across river Godavari starting at Km 82/4 of Eluru Gundugolanu-Kovvur road on Kovvur side and joining NH-5 at 197/4 on Rajahmundry side under BOT/PPI Scheme". All these documents have been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in para 6 which is also reproduced herein as under :- "Further, the importer has raised cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Pradesh has also issued letter of acceptance in respect of this contract and awarding the aforesaid project to the importer/contractor." We also do agree with the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) relied on the decision in the respondents' own case reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) and Tribunal's Order No. A/12/13/CSTB/C-I, dated 8-1-2013 [2013 (298) E.L.T. 740 (Tribunal)] on the ground that the facts of this case are similar to those cases and in those cases the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 was denied to the respondents. 5. We have examined the facts of the case law submitted by the Addl. Commr. (AR). In the case decided by the Apex Court, the importer....