2026 (3) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s June 2013 to January 2016 and the show cause notice was issued on 27.10.2017. 2. The brief facts are the Appellant is engaged in construction of residential complexes. Alleging that the Appellant had manufactured Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and had not paid excise duty as applicable, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued on 27.10.2017. Adjudication authority as per order dated 10.08.2018 confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order dated 05.07.2019 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal was filed.  3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned CA for the Appellant submits th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the Fourth Schedule as amounting to manufacture of RMC;  Appellant is not performing any process in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule; Appellant has not hired any labour for production of RMC; the agreement between the contractor and the Appellant clearly indicate that the Contractor will hire labour to produce RMC; Appellant is not producing or manufacturing RMC on its own account, it has outsourced the activity of producing RMC to the Contractor and  the Agreement between the Contractor and the Appellant states that the agreement is for Supply of RMC. 5. Learned CA further submits that the relation between the Appellant and M/s. Cementor Enginee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rpretation of statute and in such case, in the absence of any justifiable reason, invoking extended period of limitation is also unsustainable. In this regard, Learned CA relied on the decisions; i. Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex, Chandigarh-I, 2007 (216) E.L.T 177 (S.C). ii. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Mumbai, 2016 (344) E.L.T. 1132 (Tri. - Mumbai). iii. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II, (2024) 19 Centax 157 (Tri.-Ahmd). 8. Learned CA also draws our attention to the show cause notice (SCN) where it is categorically stated that "whereas from the forgoing it appears that M/s. NSPPL have  engaged M/s. Cementor En....