TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Karnataka in September 2008. (a) Western Transport Corridor-NH4 Project Package IV- Rehabilitation and upgradation of Chitra Durga-Harihar (Km 207 to 284) ("Package IV") (b) Western Transport Corridor-NH4 Project Package V- Rehabilitation and Upgradation of Harihar-Haveri (Km 284 to 304) ("Package V") 4. The appellant through agreements dated 21.07.2009 and 17.04.2010, sub-contracted the aforesaid Package-IV and Package-V projects to M/s. Deepika Infrastructure Private Ltd., ("DIPL") on back-to-back basis. 5. M/s. Deepika Infrastructure Private Ltd. ("DIPL") for the execution of the project installed 2(two) batching plants at a fixed place located on the stretch of the two construction sites i.e. Near Kundawada, Davangere (264 km stone) and Hanumanmatti, Asundi village (311km stone) to manufacture 'concrete mix' falling under Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 within the vicinity of the road construction under the aforesaid 2(two) packages. 6. The Department alleging that the Appellant had manufactured 'Ready Mix Concrete (RMC)' falling under Chapter Heading (CETH) 38245010 of first schedule of the Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factured are not 'Ready Mix Concrete (RMC)'. Further as regards the demand confirmed on the Appellant, Sr. Learned Counsel submits that Appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods and even if the goods produced in the plant is 'Ready Mix Concrete (RMC)' which attracts excise duty as alleged, the duty can be demanded only from the M/s. DIPL, since the Appellant had sub-contracted the entire work including mixing of concrete to M/s. DIPL. 8. Sr. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the statement of the Project Manager Shri. S.S.N Murthy, where he specifically stated that Appellant is not manufacturing the goods and also draws our attention to sub-contract agreement which has clearly made M/s. DIPL responsible for all plant and machinery at the site for construction of the road and DIPL was responsible for the entire construction work as per main contract and sub-contract agreements. In this regard Sr. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Voltas Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur-[2002 (139) ELT 223-Tri-Chennai] and CCE, Patna Vs. Som Datta Builders Pvt. Ltd.-[2025 (8) TMI 1137]. The Sr. Learned Counsel further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order and submits that as per the impugned order and as per the statement recorded from the Project Manager on 19.02.2013, the 'concrete mix' is not manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work but the same was manufactured at their plants located far away from construction site and then transported by transit mixer to such site. Further submits that Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) vide Circular No.368/1/98-CX dated 06.01.1998 has clarified that 'concrete mix' implies the conventional method of concrete production conforming to the ISI Standard IS Standard 456-1978 (old Indian Standard code for "Plain Reinforced Concrete') which was produced and used at the site of construction and that it is this 'concrete mix', manufactured at the site of construction which is fully exempt vide Notification No. 04/1997-CE dated 01.03.1997. Further, it is clarified that ready mix concrete or pre-mixed concrete, by its very nature, cannot be manufactured at the site of construction and is brought from the factory of manufacturer for use in construction. 'Ready mix concrete (RMC)' is an excisable product classifiable under C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch would determine as to whether the product could be termed as concrete mix or it would be treated as RMC. Whereas in the present case the show-cause notice never considered the process of preparing concrete mix to allege that the impugned goods is RMC and the Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored the allegation in the show-cause notice and has proceeded on a completely different tangent. Further we find that vide Notification No. 12/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016, Sl. No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 has been substituted to extend the benefit of exemption to "Ready mix concrete as well and it is well settled that when any substitute is made by way of amendment it is applicable, retrospectively. In support of this we may refer to the case of Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (SC) wherein while dealing with the exemption Notification which was issued by way of substitution the Apex Court has held as under: "15. The word 'substitute' ordinarily would mean 'to put (one) in place of another', or 'to replace'. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifty Edition, at page 1281, the word 'subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s guidelines for the design, construction, and testing of concrete structures. The code covers various aspects, including materials, mix design, reinforcement, and structural design. B. IS 4926:2003 is an ISI standard for Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) in India. This standard outlines the requirements for production, transportation, and quality control of RMC. The key features of IS 4926:2003 are; - Scope: Defines the requirements for production and supply of RMC, excluding placement, compaction, curing, or protection of concrete after delivery. - Materials: Specifies the requirements for cement, aggregates, water, and admixtures used in RMC. - Quality Control: Outlines the procedures for testing and inspection of materials, concrete production, and transportation. - Testing Frequencies: Defines the minimum testing frequencies for aggregates, cement, and concrete. - Production and Delivery: Specifies the requirements for batching, mixing, and transporting RMC. Important Requirements; - Cement Content: Minimum cement content should be specified, and it should be in accordance with the contract or design requi....