Ready Mix Concrete exemption and extended limitation: notification clarification on "site" affects departmental invocation of extended period, appeal pending Supreme Court review

Amendment to the exemption notification inserts an Explanation defining "site" and adds language regarding departmental knowledge and prior audit, removing reliance on substantial authority when invoking the extended period of limitation under central excise law; this affects the criteria for issuing demand notices. The Tribunal considered only the applicability of the exemption to Ready Mix Concrete used at construction sites and held the exemption applied to in-site consumption; breach of exemption conditions was not adjudicated. The Tribunal also recorded that excise duty was paid on RMC cleared and sold outside the construction site, and an appeal to the Supreme Court is directed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal based on limitation.
2. Whether the demand for the period April 2017 to June 2017 was time-barred.
3. Whether the Tribunal ignored the Explanation in Entry No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
4. Whether the Tribunal correctly held that the respondent is eligible for exemption under Entry No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
5. Whether the word "solely" in the exemption notification was given due consideration.
6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in considering "knowledge of the department" and "previous audit" to discard the authority for invoking the extended period for issuing a demand notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation in Allowing Appeal:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on the grounds of limitation, holding that the entire demand covering the period from April 2014 to September 2015 and April 2016 to June 2017 was under the extended period and therefore time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized that the show cause notice issued by the appellant – revenue was time-barred.

2. Demand for April 2017 to June 2017:
The Tribunal also held that the demand for the period April 2017 to June 2017 suffered from the vices of limitation and was therefore time-barred. This was in line with the finding that the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period.

3. Ignoring Explanation in Entry No. 144:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue by interpreting the Explanation added in Entry No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 12/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016. The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to claim exemption for the Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) used at the construction site, as there was no condition that the entire manufactured goods should be used within the premises of the manufacturer.

4. Eligibility for Exemption:
The Tribunal found that the respondent – assessee was eligible for exemption under Entry No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, amended by Notification No. 12/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016, for the RMC manufactured at the site and used in construction at such site. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had paid excise duty on the quantity of RMC cleared outside the factory and there was no condition in the notification that the entire manufactured goods should be used within the premises.

5. Consideration of the Word "Solely":
The Tribunal held that the revenue’s contention that the entire RMC manufactured at the site should be used at the site of construction was not supported by the notification. The Tribunal interpreted the word "solely" in the context of the goods used at the site, and not the entire manufactured quantity, thereby allowing the exemption for the RMC used at the construction site.

6. Knowledge of Department and Previous Audit:
The Tribunal considered the "knowledge of the department" and "previous audit" to discard the authority for invoking the extended period for issuing a demand notice under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that the department could not impose conditions not prescribed in the notification to deny the exemption.

Preliminary Objection on Maintainability:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the appeal should lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Section 35L read with Section 35G of the Act. The High Court agreed, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Navin Chemicals MFG & Trading Co. Ltd., which held that disputes relating to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment purposes should be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the appeal should be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and directed the Registry to hand over the papers to the appellant for filing before the appropriate court.

---