2011 (5) Supreme 753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
M/s Gammon India Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5166 of 2003
Decided on : 6-7-2011
(1995) 1 SCC 478; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 – Relied upon
(2009) 1 SCC 589; (2011) 2 SCC 74: 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.); (2008) 8 SCC 739 : (2008) 228 ELT 497 – Referred
(b) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Chapter 84, List 11 – Exemption Notification No. 17/2001/ Cus (General Exemption No. 121) – Condition 38 – Even though a JV is a legal entity and a person, the partners forming the JV are not entitled, severally, to benefits of exemption – Machinery ordered by one partner independently not on behalf of the JV, and paid from its own account and not from the JV account cannot attract the benefit of exemption. (Para 21)
(c) Interpretation of statutes – A provision providing for an exemption has to be construed strictly. (Para 22)
1994 Supp (3) SCC 606 – Relied upon
(d) Interpretation of statutes – When the language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the interpretative process. (Para 23)
(e) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Concurrent Bench decision – Taking a entirely different view from earlier concurrent benches after noticing the judgments is not permissible – Such practice will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. (Para 24)
(2000) 1 SCC 644 – Relied upon
2004 (166) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Del.); 2006 (198) E.L.T. 33 (Tri.-Bang.) – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case relates to eligibility for the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 17/2001/ Cus (General Exemption No. 121), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 1st March, 2001.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be flawed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
1. This Civil Appeal, under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”), is directed against order dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, as it then existed, (for short “the Tribunal”), in Appeal No. C/298/02- Mum. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 17/2001/Cus (General Exemption No. 121), issued by the Min- istry of Finance, Government of India on 1st March, 2001.
2. Briefly stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal, are as follows:
The appellant namely, M/s Gammon India Ltd. (for short “Gam-mon”) and one M/s Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai, (for short “At-lanta”) both incorporated as Public Limited Companies, entered into a joint venture agreement on 18th September, 2000. The joint venture was named and styled as “Gammon Atlanta JV”. The agreement was entered into for the purpose of submitting a bid to the National Highways Author-ity of India (for short “NHAI”) for award of a contract for construction of 31.40 Kilometers of road on National Highway-5. The terms of the agreement, inter-alia, provided that: each of the said parties would share financial responsibilities in the form of guarantees, securities etc. to the extent of 50% of the project value; the venture would be managed by set-ting up of a management board consisting of a Chairman and one Direc-tor to be nominated by Gammon and a Joint Chairman and another Direc-tor to be nominated by Atlanta. Although Gammon was to be designated as the lead partner to the venture but both the companies were to be jointly and severally liable to NHAI for due execution of the contract.
3. The bid tendered by the said joint venture was accepted by NHAI and an agreement dated 20th December, 2000 was executed between NHAI, referred to as the “Employer” on the one part and M/s Gam- mon-Atlanta JV, referred to as the “contractor”, on the other part. On behalf of Gammon-Atlanta JV, the agreement was signed by the repre- sentatives of both the companies, i.e. Gammon and Atlanta.
4. On 1st March, 2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act, the Central Government, issued the afore-noted Exemption Notification, inter alia, exempting the goods of the description specified in Column (3) of the Table given thereun- der, read with the relevant List appended thereto and falling within the Chapter, Heading no. or sub-heading no. of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) of the said Table. Serial No. 217 of the said Table granted full exemption from basic Customs duty and additional Customs duty, on the goods falling under Chapter 84 specified in List 11, required for construction of roads. However, the said exemption was subject to certain conditions, enumerated in the said notification. Condition No. 38, relevant for this case, reads as follows:
“38. 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 Trans- port, 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 Govern- ment of a State or Union Territory; or
(iii) a person who has been named as a sub-con- tractor in the contract referred to in (ii) above for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Author- ity of India, by Public Works Department of a State Government or by a road construc- tion corporation under the control of the Government of a State or Union Territory;
(b) the importer, at the time of im
IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd. v. C.C., Chennai (Sea)
Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad
Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor
New Horizons Limited v. Union of India
C.K. Gangadharan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin
Ganpati RV-Talleres Alegria Track Private Limited v. Union of India
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai v. M. Ambalal & Co.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.