AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pavement" and declared assessable value of Rs. 4,62,86,280/-. The y claimed exemption under Notification No 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. 2.2 On query regarding paving width of the machinery, Appellants responded 'the Machine is having in built facility of paving width from 3 meter to 6 meter. The laying width upto 9 Meter is facilitated by the addition of 2 bolt on extension (screed option) supplied with the machine. This implied that machine was capable of laying Pavement of 3 Meters to 6 meter, whereas the Sr No 2 of the List 18 (Sr No 230 of the Notification No 21/2002) covers only the machine capable of laying Bituminous Pavement 7 meter size and above. 2.3 On query to effect that importers name was not shown as the subcontractor in the main contract between NHAI and the concessionaire, importer replied "as they have been appointed as the sub contractor by the Concessionaire and the NHAI has also approved the same vide their certificate dated 24.02.010, they should be considered as the sub contractor and benefit of notification should be extended to them." 2.4 Importer vide letter dated 19.05.2010 waived the requirement of show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be interpreted in the manner it is without addition or deletion of any words to it. v Interpretation should not make the entry itself redundant. 4.1 We have heard Shri Roopam Kapoor Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue and Shri Prashant Patankar, Consultant for the respondents. 4.2 Arguing for the revenue, learned Authorized Representative reiterated the submissions made in the Appeal. He further stated that issue is well settled in the favour of revenue by the decision of Apex Court in case of Gammon India [2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC)]. 4.3 Arguing for the respondents the learned advocate submitted that the item imported by them in form it is imported and presented for assessment, is capable of laying the pavements upto 9 mts width with the two attachments provided. Since the notification exempts all such machines capable of laying pavements of 7 mtr and above, the exemption claimed was admissible to them. He further submitted that since by the letter dated 24.02.2010 they have been approved as sub contractors by the NHAI, they should have been allowed the benefit of Concession agreement and the exemption under said notification. 5.1 We have considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 under Notification No 21/2002 (Sr No 230) grants exemption to Electric Pavers Finishers (With Sensor Device) for laying bituminous pavements 7 mtr., size and above. In other words, the machine/ pavers should be able pavements of size 7 mtrs (and above). As per the manufacturers catalogue, the screed options are "basic width 3 mtrs infinitely variable with 3 mtrs to 6 mtrs, maximum width 9 mtrs. Hence the pavers can lay pavement upto 9 mtrs through additional bolt in extension. Therefore it is opined that the pavers should be able to lay pavements of 7 mtrs and above in order to claim the benefit." From the plain reading of the said para it is quite evident that Commissioner (Appeal) has not allowed benefit of said exemption notification to any paver which not is laying pavements of 7 Mts., and above. The appeal has been filed by way of erroneous reading of the said para. 5.4 Even the issue is well settled by the decision of larger bench of Tribunal in case of Commissioner Custom (Import) Mumbai vs Ramky Infrastructure Ltd [2014 (306) ELT 525 (T-LB)], wherein in para 8 to 10, it has been held as follows: "8. Now, the issue before us is whether the machines in question fulfil t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at such a Notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption." 10. In the present case, as we find that as per the product literature, the machines in question are capable of laying bituminous pavement from 3 meters to 6 meters i.e. less than 7 meters, therefore we find no reason to take a different view as in the case of Gammon India Ltd. (supra). The matter be placed before the regular Bench for further necessary orders." Thus we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the respondents in their cross objection in this respect. 5.5 On the issue of raised by the Appellants in their cross objections, vis a vis they being approved as sub contractors by NHAI, we do not find any merits in the said submissions made by the respondents in view of the decision of tribunal in case of Gammon India Ltd [2013 (298) ELT 740 (T-Mum)] wherein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of the notification a person has been named as sub-contractor in the contract referred in (ii) above, that is in the contract between NHAI and M/s. GICL in the instant case. The word "named" signifies "to make reference to or speak about briefly but specifically" (ref. Webster's online dictionary). In other words, the appellant should be specifically named or designated as a sub-contractor explicitly. We do not find any such specification of the appellant as a sub-contractor in the instant case. Accordingly we hold that the appellant has not satisfied Condition No. 40(a)(iii) stipulated in the notification. Consequently, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of duty exemption under the said notification. 6.3 In law, "sub-contractor" is a person who is awarded a portion of an existing contract by a principal or general contractor. Sub-contractor performs work under a contract with a general contractor, rather than the employer who hired the general contractor. In the present case the MOU was entered on 24th January, 2006. At that time there was no contract at all between NHAI and M/s. GICL. The concession agreement between NHAI and M/s. GICL was entered into on 6th Oc....