9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 92 - AT - Central ExciseClassification - Is the product manufactured by the appellant is RMC (Ready mix concrete) or concrete mix and whether benefit of Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997 is available to the appellant in respect of the product manufactured by them - Held that - the mix manufactured by the appellant is specially made for Mahindra & Mahindra and is manufactured with precision of a high standard and is delivered to the customer at his site. Thus prima facie it fulfills the criteria identified by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Larson & Toubro 2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT . In the instant case the appellants are also adding plasticizers to improve the quality of the concrete. In view of above it is held that the product manufactured by the appellants is RMC and the appellants are not entitled under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997. Invokation of extended period of limitation - Held that - the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture 2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is squarely on this issue. Therefore, as the period as well as the issue involved is roughly the same. Relying upon the above said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court we hold that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product as Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) or Concrete Mix (CM). 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997. 3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Product as RMC or CM: The primary issue was to determine whether the product manufactured by the appellants was Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) or Concrete Mix (CM). The Tribunal referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2015 (324) ELT 646 (S.C.)), which clarified that RMC and CM are distinct products. The Supreme Court noted that RMC involves a specific manufacturing process, including the use of batching plants, stone crushers, conveyors, and the addition of chemicals to increase shelf life. The Tribunal found that the appellants' product, manufactured at the site, contained plasticizers but not retarders, and was specifically made for Mahindra & Mahindra with high precision, thereby fulfilling the criteria for RMC. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the product was RMC and not CM. 2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997: The appellants argued that their product should be exempt under Notification No. 4/97, which exempts concrete mix manufactured at the site of construction. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which explicitly stated that the exemption applies only to CM and not to RMC. The Tribunal concluded that since the product in question was RMC, it was not eligible for exemption under the said notification. 3. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation: The Tribunal examined whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked. The appellants contended that there was genuine confusion regarding the taxability of RMC and its eligibility for exemption, citing the decision in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture (2007 (216) ELT 177 (S.C.)), which highlighted that there must be a wilful intent to evade duty for the extended period to apply. The Tribunal found that the factual scenario indicated a genuine doubt and confusion in the field, ruling out the application of the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and penalties against the appellants. Since the main demand was set aside, the penalties against the individuals were also annulled. The judgment emphasized that the product manufactured by the appellants was RMC, not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/97, and that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the genuine confusion regarding the taxability of RMC.
|
