2024 (12) TMI 1236 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue appeal dismissed on time-barred excise duty demand for ready mix concrete exemption under Notification 12/2012-CE

C.C.E. & S.T. - Rajkot Versus Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Vice-Versa)

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding excise duty exemption on ready mix concrete (RMC) manufactured at construction sites. The tribunal ... Benefit of exemption from excise duty on RMC manufactured at site under Sr. No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, for the period prior to amendment dated 01.03.2016 - Invocation of extended period of limitation. Whether benefit of exemption from excise duty is available on RMC manufactured at site under Sr. No. 144 of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, for the period prior to amendment dated 01.03.2016. i.e. when the exemption was granted to 'Concrete Mix manufactured at the site of construction'? - HELD THAT:- This issue was carried in litigation in various judgments and there were conflicting issues on this issue. Later on the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L&T Limited [2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT] finally decided the matter that the exemption is available to only ready mix concrete and not the concrete mix. It is also observed that subsequently the Government has brought the exemption also for concrete mix, vide Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 under Serial No. 144. This shows that there was an ambiguity about the exemption on concrete mix vis a vis ready mix concrete. Considering all these fact and applying the judgments, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held the demand being time barred. Therefore, there are no infirmity in setting aside the demand on the ground of time bar by Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- On the identical issue Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Limited [2022 (3) TMI 400 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] also held the demand as time bar. Thus, the ratio of the above judgment is directly applicable on the issue of demand being time bar. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand of extended period. Accordingly the impugned order to the extent it set aside the demand for the extended period is upheld. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption from excise duty on Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at the site under Notification No. 12/2012-CE for the period prior to the amendment on 01.03.2016.2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation in the context of a contentious issue, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Exemption from Excise Duty:The core issue in this case was whether the exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, specifically under Sr. No. 144, was applicable to Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured at the site of construction for the period before the amendment on 01.03.2016. The appellant conceded that, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, the exemption was not applicable to concrete mix, thus not pressing the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Supreme Court had clarified that the exemption was limited to 'Concrete Mix' and did not extend to 'Ready Mix Concrete,' which involved a more sophisticated manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that the exemption was later extended to include RMC, indicating prior ambiguity in the law.2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:The second issue was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked due to the contentious nature of the issue during the relevant period. The Tribunal examined the background of conflicting judgments and the eventual Supreme Court decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which resolved the matter by distinguishing between 'Concrete Mix' and 'Ready Mix Concrete.' The Tribunal found that before this decision, there was significant ambiguity and conflicting interpretations regarding the exemption's applicability. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand for the extended period as time-barred, considering the lack of clarity and the absence of any willful suppression of facts by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the assessee had disclosed all relevant information in their ER-1 Returns and invoices, which were available to the department. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Continental Foundation JT. Venture v. CCE, which highlighted that mere omission or incorrect statement without intent to evade duty does not justify invoking the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand for the extended period, finding no infirmity in the order.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the extended period of limitation, affirming that the demand was time-barred due to the lack of suppression or misstatement of facts by the assessee. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed, confirming the ineligibility for exemption under the specific notification for the period in question.