Ready Mix Concrete classification turns on the manufacturing process, and site-based plants do not qualify for the concrete-mix exemption.

Ready Mix Concrete is characterised by the manufacturing process, not merely by the plant's location at the construction site, so a site-based plant may still produce dutiable RMC under tariff heading 3824.20. The exemption for concrete mix made and used at site applies only to concrete actually mixed and consumed at the site, and not to RMC prepared through batching, transit mixing and controlled placement before setting. For the post-1-3-1997 period, the extended limitation approach is linked to the absence of clarification sought and the inapplicability of the site-mix exemption to RMC; the earlier period remained outside duty. Valuation and penalty were left for fresh determination on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product manufactured at the project site was Ready Mix Concrete classifiable under tariff heading 3824.20 and outside the exemption for concrete mix made and used at site. (ii) Whether duty for the post-1-3-1997 period was recoverable by invoking the extended period of limitation, while the prior period remained non-dutiable.

Issue (i): Whether the product manufactured at the project site was Ready Mix Concrete classifiable under tariff heading 3824.20 and outside the exemption for concrete mix made and used at site.

Analysis: The manufacturing process involved blasting, crushing, automatic batching, regulated feeding of aggregates, sand, cement and water, electronic control, transit mixing and placement before setting time, which matched the process described for Ready Mix Concrete in the Board's clarification and the BIS view. The fact that the plant was located at the construction site was held not to alter the character of the product. The exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was held applicable only to concrete mix manufactured and used at the site, not to Ready Mix Concrete.

Conclusion: The product was held to be Ready Mix Concrete classifiable under heading 3824.20, and the exemption for site-mixed concrete was denied for the post-1-3-1997 period.

Issue (ii): Whether duty for the post-1-3-1997 period was recoverable by invoking the extended period of limitation, while the prior period remained non-dutiable.

Analysis: For the period prior to 1-3-1997, the demand was treated as covered by the earlier classification position and departmental acceptance of the Tribunal view. For the period after insertion of the specific tariff entry, the plea of bona fide belief was rejected because the appellants did not seek clarification and the exemption relied upon did not extend to Ready Mix Concrete. The valuation issue was not finally determined and was sent back for fresh determination on the basis of material to be furnished, and penalty was also directed to be reconsidered de novo.

Conclusion: Duty was sustained for the period from 1-3-1997 onward by applying the extended period, while no duty was held payable for the earlier period.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by remand after partly upholding the revenue demand for the later period, excluding the earlier period, and directing fresh determination of valuation, duty quantification and penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: The character of concrete as Ready Mix Concrete depends on the manufacturing process and not on the mere location of the plant, and the site-concrete exemption applies only to concrete mix made and used at site, not to Ready Mix Concrete.

---