Page 91 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] COMMR. OF CGST v. BHARAT MUMBAI CONTAINER TERMINALS P. LTD. 177

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 177 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)
COMMR. OF CGST
COMMR. OF CGST, MUMBAI
COMMR. OF CGST
Versus
BHARAT MUMBAI CONTAINER TERMINALS P. LTD.

Final Order No. A/86588/2019-WZB, dated 3-9-2019 in Appeal No. ST/88931/2018
Works contract awarded by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust - Exemption -
Retrospective exemption under Notification No. 9/2016-S.T. - Department
pleaded that appellate authority failed to examine the existence of claim, if
any, filed, or benefit availed, by two sub-contractors consequent upon restora-
tion of exemption - Also that first appellate authority failed to ascertain if the
respondent had concurred with Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to include the tax
component in the capitalization to avail higher depreciation - Revenue also
pleaded that requirement, in Notification No. 9/2016-S.T., dated 1-3-2016 pre-
scribing certification of contract having been entered into before 1-3-2015 had
not been complied with - HELD : Impugned order cannot be assailed for non-
compliance with the certification prescribed in exemption notification as the
certificate furnished, though issued on letterhead of Port Trust, has been at-
tested by Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Shipping, GOI - Notification has
not prescribed the form or manner in which certificate of Ministry is to be au-
thenticated - Attestation of certificate signed by Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru
Port Trust by competent authority in Ministry of Shipping, therefore suffices
as compliance - Issue of whether any claim for refund has been preferred by
two sub-contractors who included tax in invoice raised on respondent or had
availed benefits is, too vague on allegation to be raised before Tribunal - Tri-
bunal not expected to either undertake an enquiry, or direct any of lower au-
thorities to proceed in that direction merely on the basis of apprehensions en-
tertained by Committee of Commissioners. [paras 7, 8, 9]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Collector v. Presto Industries — 2001 (128) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Referred .......................................... [Para 6]
Mars Plastic and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2003 (156) E.L.T. 941 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................................ [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri M. Suresh, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for the
Appellant.
Shri Sunil Gabhawalla, CA, for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.J. Mathew, Member (T)]. - This appeal of Revenue lies
against Order-in-Appeal No. NSK/135/RGD/2018, dated 8th May, 2018 of
Commissioner of Central GST, Raigad and disputes the refund of
` 48,61,75,921/- sanctioned to the respondent, M/s. Bharat Mumbai Container
Terminals P. Ltd., on the determination that they were entitled to the conse-
quences of retrospective exemption accorded to the activity rendered in a works
contract awarded by Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust.
2. The tax liability, discharged for the period 1st May, 2015 to 29th Feb-

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  91