- (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.;