9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 decided ex parte, that the conditions of exemption notification had been breached with consequential liability to customs duty, along with interest, confiscation with fine for redemption and penalties. Besides, penalties were imposed on Shri Umakant Tiwari and Col Charan Singh, two employees, under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 who have also filed appeals. 2. It is obvious from the identification of issues in the appeal as prosecuted on behalf of M/s Gammon India Ltd and the defence mounted by Revenue that there is a disconnect in the discourse itself. Such a disconnect can have only one resolution to which we shall turn presently following the narration of the facts and analysis of the notification in dispute. 3. M/s Gammon India Ltd imported 'hydraulically operated self-propelled piling rig Model No. HR-80' valued at Rs. 2,34,57,654 and, in bill of entry no. 672402/04.05.2006, claimed benefit of exemption cited supra at serial no. 230 available to 21 specified goods (enumerated in List 18 among which the impugned goods are at serial no. 14) subject to compliance with condition no. 40. As prescribed in the exemption notification thus '40. If,- (a) the goods are imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely for road projects, the proposals in the show cause notice were confirmed in the impugned order. Admittedly, the order was passed in the absence of a final response from the noticee and, though not for want of opportunities having been granted to them, without being heard in person. This is the primary contest of Learned Counsel for appellants along with the claim that the goods were utilised, even if not for the agencies specified in the conditions of exemption, only for road construction and that, had they been given time as sought by them evidence to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority could have been produced. 6. It is also contended by Learned Counsel that their request for cross-examination of an official of M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, whose submission about the activities of that organisation had been relied upon in the show cause notice, had met with a peremptory refusal, and that the duty liability should have been computed after allowing depreciation for the period of deployment on road works which was also refused by relying upon certain judgements that had no bearing on the specific facts pertaining to the present issue. The imposition of penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atute should be construed in favour of the assessee - assuming that the said principle is good and sound - does not apply to the construction of an exception or an exempting provision; they have to be construed strictly. A person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. This is for the reason explained in Mangalore Chemicals and other decisions, viz., each such exception/exemption increases the tax burden on other members of the community correspondingly. Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC) = 1969 (2) S.C.R. 253) that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r intended use and the fact that the imported paver finisher was not found to be used for intended purpose during investigation which amounts to suppression, therefore, the show-cause notice issued is within limitation.' and on the decision in Shreeji Construction v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2014 (313) ELT 566 (Tri-Mumbai)]. The latter, though referring to the expression 'road construction', we do not find to be of any relevance to the present dispute on an entirely different matter. On the contrary, the reference in that order to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd [1988 (38) ELT 564 (SC)] to the effect that 'It is well-settled that the meaning ascribed by the authority issuing the Notification, is a good guide for contemporaneous exposition of the position of law. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in KP Varghese v. The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, [1982] 1 SCR 629. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a Statute will give much weight to the interpretation upon it at the time of enactment and since, by those whose duty as been to constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 'for' to qualify such entitlement. Impliedly, the entitlement arises from a contractual engagement that permits access to the exemption notification. Not unnaturally, such a contract may terminate for manifold reasons. A mutual belief of such engagement that may, for some reason or the other, be disengaged even before commencement should not operate retrospectively to disentitle of the entity that derived the advantage of the exemption at the threshold. Indeed, it would appear that, with the insistence on retention and utilisation, the safeguard of public interest distinguishes the eligibility at the threshold from the continuing eligibility thereafter. The two conditions are, thus, to be enforced separately and distinctly. Hence, it can be concluded that the scheme of exemption is not intended for exclusive use in contracts furnished as evidence of entitlement to the exemption. In the present dispute, the eligibility at the threshold, arising from the agreement with the National Highway Authority of India whose genuineness is not controverted, cannot be denied notwithstanding the subsequent breakdown of the engagement. 13. With the dichotomy of entitlement at the threshold, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
