2016 (12) TMI 29 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of the respondent for exemption under N/N. 4/2006- dated 1.3.2006 - manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete falling under Heading No.38245010 - The Department by entertaining a view that the respondent manufactured only Ready Mix Concrete and not Concrete Mix proceeded to demand central excise duty from the respondent - Held that - merely using a different name for the same product cannot result in a different product thereby leading to denial of exemption to which the appellant are lawfully entitled and Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 having referred to the concrete mix as filling under Chapter Heading 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act it is but necessary to treat the said entry as only referring to the RMC since Concrete Mix if left unused would harden and particularly in the absence of any other entry in the said chapter referring to the Concrete mix, as otherwise notification no.4/2006-CE would be rendered in fructuous or meaningless which is not permissible under law as has been laid in a plethora of judgments of the courts and tribunals Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for exemption under Notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl.No.74) for manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete falling under Heading No.38245010.

The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under Notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl.No.74) for manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete. The Department contended that the respondent manufactured only "Ready Mix Concrete" and not "Concrete Mix," leading to a demand for central excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand, which was appealed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order found that using a different name for the same product does not alter its nature, emphasizing that the exemption referred to "concrete mix" under Chapter 38 without specifying a sub-heading. The Tribunal highlighted that without material evidence, differences in IS Standards or Central Excise Tariff Act headings are insufficient to deny the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the impugned order, dismissing the appeals by the Revenue.

The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the Board's Circular, interpreting the term "site" broadly to include premises made available to the manufacturer by contract. It was noted that the RMC Plant was established near the construction site for a specific purpose, justifying the exemption for the respondent. The Revenue argued a distinction between "Concrete Mix" and "Ready Mix Concrete" due to differing IS Standards, contending that the exemption for "concrete mix" cannot extend to "ready mix concrete." However, the Tribunal found the absence of substantial evidence to support this claim, emphasizing that the exemption notification did not limit the product to a specific sub-heading within Chapter 38. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to overturn the findings of the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under Notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl.No.74) for manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete. The Tribunal emphasized that minor differences in product names or standards are insufficient to deny the exemption when the notification refers broadly to "concrete mix" under Chapter 38 without specifying a sub-heading. The Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeals affirmed the broader interpretation of the exemption criteria applied in the impugned order.