Marketable cement articles for bridge works were treated as excisable goods, while exemption denial was remanded for reconsideration.

Cement articles such as RCC boxes and slabs manufactured for railway bridge works were treated as identifiable, marketable goods and classified under Heading 6807, with the Tribunal relying on prior rulings on similar fully cast cement articles. The denial of Notification No. 13/88 on procedural excise non-compliance was held unsustainable where the notification granted substantive exemption, and Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was interpreted broadly so that railway bridge construction was not excluded from the term "site." The demand and penalty were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on exemption and limitation, while the excisable character of the products was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cement articles manufactured for railway bridge works were goods and marketable, and classifiable under Heading 6807. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 13/88 and Notification No. 59/90-C.E. for the impugned clearances.

Issue (i): Whether the cement articles manufactured for railway bridge works were goods and marketable, and classifiable under Heading 6807.

Analysis: The classification and excisability of the RCC boxes and slabs were treated as covered by the existing legal position on manufacture of cement articles for project use. The materials were manufactured and cleared as identifiable articles of cement, and the Tribunal relied on prior decisions holding similar fully cast cement articles to be goods falling under Heading 6807.

Conclusion: The items were held to be goods, marketable, and classifiable under Heading 6807, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 13/88 and Notification No. 59/90-C.E. for the impugned clearances.

Analysis: The denial of Notification No. 13/88 on the ground that Central Excise formalities had not been observed was held unsustainable where the notification itself exempted the goods. The interpretation of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was taken from the earlier view that the term "site" should not be narrowly read and that bridge works for railway construction were not excluded from its ambit. The separate plea on limitation was not finally decided and was directed to be reconsidered along with the notification issue on remand.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to reconsideration of the notification benefit, and the adverse denial of exemption was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order of demand and penalty was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on exemption and limitation, while the finding that the products were excisable goods was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Cement articles manufactured for a specific project may still be excisable goods if they are identifiable, marketable products, and an exemption notification cannot be denied on the basis of procedural non-compliance where the notification itself grants substantive relief.

---