2019 (12) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 4/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 - Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and concrete mix (CM) - manufacturing at site - whether CM and RMC are one and the same thing? - HELD THAT - The appellant could not establish that the goods manufactured by the appellant were anything other than Ready Mix Concrete . The revenue has established that the goods manufactured were Ready Mix Concrete . The ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. ANOTHER, ECC CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable in the present case - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said case has settled the issue in respect of Ready Mix Concrete and have held that Concrete Mix and Ready Mix Concrete are two different products and the said Notification No.4/97-CE extends the exemption benefit only for Concrete Mix and the said exemption would not be available for Ready Mix Concrete. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods as 'Ready Mix Concrete' or 'Concrete Mix'.
2. Applicability of Central Excise duty on the manufactured goods.
3. Interpretation of CBEC Circular No.368/1/98-CX.
4. Exemption eligibility under Notification No.4/97-CE.
5. Validity of the demand of Central Excise duty.
6. Jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling on 'Ready Mix Concrete'.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were involved in constructing a residential complex and manufacturing 'Ready Mix Concrete' at their project site. The revenue issued a show cause notice based on CBEC Circular No.368/1/98-CX, claiming Central Excise duty on the manufactured goods, distinct from 'Concrete Mix' exempted under Notification No.4/97-CE.

2. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty demand, imposing a penalty, which was appealed by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand beyond the normal limitation period and the penalty, but upheld the duty demand within the limitation period, classifying the goods as 'Ready Mix Concrete' under Tariff Item No.38245010.

3. The appellant contended that the goods manufactured were different from those in the Supreme Court's judgment in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. case, not subject to Central Excise duty and eligible for exemption under Notification No.4/97-CE.

4. The Tribunal noted the failure of the appellant to establish the goods as other than 'Ready Mix Concrete', as confirmed by the revenue. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal held that 'Concrete Mix' and 'Ready Mix Concrete' are distinct products, with the exemption under Notification No.4/97-CE applicable only to 'Concrete Mix', thus upholding the Order-in-Appeal.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not present a case for intervention, as the Supreme Court's ruling on 'Ready Mix Concrete' applied directly to the present case, affirming the Order-in-Appeal and dismissing the appellant's appeal.

6. The judgment emphasized the settled issue by the Supreme Court regarding 'Ready Mix Concrete', clarifying the differentiation from 'Concrete Mix' and the inapplicability of the exemption to 'Ready Mix Concrete', reinforcing the decision to uphold the Order-in-Appeal based on the established classification of the goods.