2026-VIL-716-CESTAT-BLR-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Concrete Mix or Ready-Mix Concrete - Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 in respect of the concrete mix claimed to be manufactured by them - Revenue's claim that appellant have manufactured Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) at the site, hence, not eligible to the benefit of the said notification – HELD - The difference between the concrete mix and Ready-Mix Concrete mainly rests on the machinery used, the process of manufacture and use of retarders and plasticizers which enhances the setting time of Ready-Mix Concrete. The appellant had not added any retarders and plasticizers, which is quite essential in the case of Ready-Mix Concrete to increase the shelf life. Besides, it is the claim of the appellant that concrete mix manufactured by the appellant are as per IS 456: 2000; whereas for Ready-Mix Concrete is IS 4926:2003 - The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad and the CBEC Circular No. 368/19/98-CX dated 06.01.1998, and concluded that the product manufactured by the appellant at the site which is 2 km away is Concrete Mix and not Ready-Mix Concrete, and therefore, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification - Further, the demand is unsustainable in law as the Department issued the show-cause notice after 3.5 years of receiving the information from the appellant. When all the information was available with the department in the year 2015 itself, demanding differential duty after receiving the information for the subsequent period invoking suppression of facts, is unsustainable in law - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page