2019 (2) TMI 1026 - AT - Central Excise

N/N. 04/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 and subsequent N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) prepared at site of construction and consumed captively - extended period of limitation - Held that - The issue stands decided against the assessee on merits by the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT but we note that Para 23 of the said judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court has itself observed that there was doubt in the field and following the said decision, Tribunal in the case of M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT MUMBAI has extended the benefit of limitation to the assessee - also, the extended period is not available to the Revenue. The demand for the period falling outside the normal period, is set aside along with setting aside of penalty upon the appellant - However, the demand falling within the limitation period is required to be upheld - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption eligibility of 'Ready Mix Concrete' (RMC) under specific notifications.
2. Time bar for raising show cause notice.
3. Benefit of limitation extension based on precedent decisions.

Exemption Eligibility of 'Ready Mix Concrete' (RMC):
The judgment revolves around determining whether 'Ready Mix Concrete' prepared on-site and consumed captively qualifies for exemption under Notification No.04/97-CE and subsequent Notification No.12/2012-CE. The appellant's representative concedes that a Supreme Court ruling in a related case goes against their stance. However, they argue that prior to this ruling, various Tribunal and High Court decisions favored the exemption claim for RMC manufactured at the construction site. They cite specific cases and decisions supporting their position, emphasizing that the issue was only reversed post the Supreme Court judgment.

Time Bar for Raising Show Cause Notice:
The appellant contests the demand on the basis of time bar, highlighting that the show cause notice for the period in question was issued after a significant delay. They rely on precedent cases where the benefit of limitation extension was granted to the assessee due to the interpretation involved, as observed in the Tribunal's decisions. The appellant's argument stresses that since there was uncertainty in the field, the benefit of limitation should be extended to them, as done in similar cases.

Benefit of Limitation Extension Based on Precedent Decisions:
Although the Supreme Court's decision went against the assessee on the merits, the Tribunal noted a doubt in the field regarding the issue. Citing specific paragraphs from the Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal extended the benefit of limitation to the assessee in line with previous decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the extended period was not available to the Revenue, setting aside the demand falling outside the normal period and the associated penalty. However, the demand within the limitation period was upheld, with directions to the Original Adjudicating Authority for quantification.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the core issues of exemption eligibility for 'Ready Mix Concrete,' the time bar for raising show cause notices, and the extension of limitation benefits based on precedent decisions, providing a detailed understanding of the Tribunal's decision-making process and legal reasoning.