Concrete Mix exemption depends on site-specific process and absence of RMC machinery; extended limitation fails without suppression.

Site-specific concrete produced through a limited mixing process was treated as Concrete Mix, not Ready-Mix Concrete, because the plant operated near the project site, the materials were mixed for immediate use, and no sophisticated RMC machinery or additives were shown. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE was available. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable because the department had already sought and received details of the plant, process, and clearances, so suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The demand therefore failed on both classification and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the concrete manufactured at the project site qualified as Concrete Mix entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, or was liable to duty as Ready-Mix Concrete; (ii) whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the concrete manufactured at the project site qualified as Concrete Mix entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, or was liable to duty as Ready-Mix Concrete.

Analysis: The decisive factors were the nature of the manufacturing process, the machinery employed, and the absence of the sophisticated features associated with Ready-Mix Concrete. The plant was established near the project site solely for the barrage work, and the materials were mixed and sent over a short distance for immediate use. No evidence showed deployment of the machinery, additives, or process typically associated with Ready-Mix Concrete, such as stone crushers, conveyors, vibrator screens, sand mills, retarders, or plasticizers. The distinction between conventional Concrete Mix and Ready-Mix Concrete, as recognised in the relevant circular and in the cited Supreme Court principles, turned on these functional and technical differences.

Conclusion: The product manufactured was Concrete Mix and not Ready-Mix Concrete, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

Issue (ii): whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The department had called for details in 2015, and the assessee furnished the manufacturing and clearance particulars at that stage. The record showed that the relevant facts regarding the plant, process, and clearances were within the department's knowledge well before issuance of the show-cause notice. In such circumstances, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not supported.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand failed on both classification and limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where site-specific concrete is produced by a limited mixing process without the machinery and additives characteristic of Ready-Mix Concrete, it is to be treated as Concrete Mix for the purpose of the exemption; and the extended period cannot be invoked when the material facts were disclosed to the department.

---