SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1593

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
D.M. Misra, Judicial Member, R. Bhagya Devi, Technical Member
Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs – Respondent
E/20641/2021 | Central Excise Appeal No. 20641 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. S. Nagaraja
For the Respondents: Vikalp Jain

The distinction between Concrete Mix and Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) hinges on the machinery used, the manufacturing process, and the incorporation of chemical admixtures like retarders and plasticizers; production lacking these elements qualifies as simple concrete mix, thereby qualifying for excise duty exemptions.

Headnote:(A) Central Excise - Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Concrete Mix vs. Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) - Appellant engaged in construction of government project, manufactured concrete mix at site - Revenue contending it as RMC and denying exemption - Tribunal held that product is concrete mix and not RMC considering absence of advanced machinery (stone crushers, conveyors, sand mills) and absence of specific admixtures like retarders and plasticizers essential for RMC - Benefit of exemption Notification allowed. (Paras 3, 8, 9)

(B) Limitation - Extended period of limitation - Show-cause notice issued after 3.5 years despite appellant providing all relevant details and processes to department in 2015 - Allegation of suppression of facts unsustainable when information was known to department - Demand time-barred. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was engaged in the construction of the central portion of the Thanneermukkom Barrage project. To facilitate the construction, a temporary concrete mixing plant was installed on land permitted by the Irrigation Department near the site. The department classified the concrete manufactured as Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and demanded excise duty, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority. The appellant appealed, arguing the product was simple concrete mix, eligible for exemption.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the ingredients, machinery used, and the absence of specific chemical additives prove the product is concrete mix as per IS 456:2000, distinct from RMC (IS 4926:2003). The demand was also found to be time-barred as there was no suppression of facts.

Issues: Whether the concrete manufactured by the appellant qualifies as 'Concrete Mix' eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, and whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

Ratio Decidendi: Concrete Mix and RMC are distinct; classification depends on the manufacturing process, machinery deployed, and the use of specific admixtures. Since the appellant's process was basic and lacked features of RMC production, the exemption applies.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the appeal and dispute regarding classification of concrete products. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellants' arguments concerning manufacturing process, eligibility for exemption, and limitation period. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis of the distinction between concrete mix and ready-mix concrete based on technical specifications and established jurisprudence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. findings on limitation and final order regarding exemption eligibility. (Para 10 , 11)

PER: D.M. MISRA

This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-533-2020 dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Cochin.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing Ready Mix Concrete without payment of excise duty, accordingly, the department requested the appellant to furnish details of manufacture and clearance of Ready-Mix Concrete and connected records for the relevant period. In response, the appellant through their letter dated 22.01.2015 submitted details of production and utilisation of Ready-Mix Concrete from 10.11.2014 to 14.01.2015. It is informed that the plant is solely for use of Construction of Central Portion of Thanneermukkom Barrage (3rd Stage work) under an Agreement dated 27.06.2014 with Superintending Engineer, Kuttanad Development Circle, Kottayam. Consequently, investigation was initiated by the department by recording statement and retrieving records. On completion of investigation, show-cause notice was issued to them on 16.07.2018 proposing to classify Ready-Mix Concrete under subheading 3824.20 (now 3824 5010) and recovery of duty of Rs.17,53,833/- along with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (A), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that effective rate of excise duty in terms of Sl. No.144 of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 was ‘Nil’ rate of duty in respect of concrete mix manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work. The appellant was a Government Contractor and entrusted the construction of civil structures including water treatment projects, bridges, etc., and undertake the work of Kuttanad Package-FMP-Modernisation of Thanneermukkam Bund to manage salinity and minimize ecological decay, construction of the central portion of Thanneermukkam Barrage (3rd Stage work) in Alappuzha District under an Agreement dated 27.06.2014 with the Superintending Engineer, Kuttanad Development Circle, Kottayam. He has submitted that the concrete mix manufactured in the said plant is conveyed in full to the Thanneermukkam Bund for construction of the central portion of the bund and no quantity is sold outside. The distance of plant to the construction site is less than 2 kilometre and that the product is transported to the site in lorries / trucks owned by the Appellant. Further, he has submitted that necessary permission was obtained from the Executive Engineer for installing the batching plant at the site. He has submitted that in response to the department’s show cause notice, the appellant has replied that since the preparation of the concrete mix was not feasible at the construction site, the only possible mode was to prepare concrete mix at one of the banks and convey/transport it to the work site, according it was carried out on the land owned by the State Irrigation Department. The Executive Engineer, Kuttanad Development Division, Thannermukkam through letter dated 18.03.2016 has furnished the process for manufacture and installation of the temporary concrete mix plant located at the land belonging to the Irrigation Department. The manufacturing process involves aggregates are fed to the bin which convey to the mixer t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top