Site-mixed concrete treated as exempt concrete mix, and extended limitation was rejected for lack of suppression.

Concrete mixed at a project site for exclusive use in that construction was treated as concrete mix, not ready mix concrete, so the exemption remained available. The classification turned on the actual manufacturing process and the record did not establish that the product had the characteristics of ready mix concrete. On limitation, the extended period was held unavailable because the dispute involved interpretation of the exemption entry, the Department already had relevant records, and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore time-barred and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the goods manufactured at the project premises were classifiable as concrete mix eligible for exemption or as ready mix concrete liable to central excise duty; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the goods manufactured at the project premises were classifiable as concrete mix eligible for exemption or as ready mix concrete liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The record showed that the concrete mixing activity was carried out at the project site and the goods were used exclusively for that construction work. The show-cause notice did not establish, on the basis of evidence or the manufacturing process, that the activity answered the characteristics of ready mix concrete. The distinction between concrete mix and ready mix concrete depended on the actual process of preparation, and the materials on record did not support the Department's classification. The subsequent substitution in the exemption entry also supported a liberal construction of the notification in favour of eligibility.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be concrete mix manufactured at site and the exemption was held available to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The investigation had already taken place and the relevant records were available with the Department, yet the notice was issued after the normal limitation period. The dispute turned on interpretation of an exemption entry, the assessee had a bona fide belief supported by earlier decisions in its own case, and the material did not show suppression with intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, invocation of the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows manufacture of concrete mix at the construction site for exclusive use in that project, and the Department fails to establish suppression or the factual basis for treating it as ready mix concrete, the exemption cannot be denied and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---