Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 498 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Ready Mix Concrete - Department entertained a view that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete and the same is cleared by them from their plant situated at Kumbalgodu to the project site without taking any Central Excise Registration and without paying any excise duty - case of appellant is that the concrete mix prepared by them is classifiable as concrete mix under Chapter Heading 38245010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as the same was being prepared at site of construction and the same is exempted from excise duty vide Sl. No. 144 of Notification No. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 - non-speaking order - scope of SCN - time limitation. Held that:- As per the mahazar dated 05.03.2014 prepared on the spot in the presence of witnesses, it is clearly mentioned that the production of concrete mixing activity was in progress at the site of the project. Further we find that the original authority after considering the material on record and the statement of T.R. Umaprasad wherein he has fairly stated that the concrete was produced at their batching plant at the Kengeri site and used for construction of the said project. Further we find that the show-cause notice which has proposed to classify the impugned goods as RMC is without any evidence and basis. Further, in the show-cause notice there is no allegation that process adopted by the appellant to manufacture the impugned goods is similar to the process required for manufacturing RMC and the Department has never disputed or challenged or considered the manufacturing process adopted by the appellant. Time limitation - Held that:- The investigation took place in March 2014 and all the records were taken by the Department during the investigation and statements were also recorded but the show-cause notice was issued in June 2016 which is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. Though the Department has invoked the extended period alleging suppression whereas according to us there was no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty and the appellant had a bona fide belief that the impugned goods are exempted from payment of duty - invoking the extended period of limitation to demand duty is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|