TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thy, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 3.The learned Advocate took us through the relevant entries in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Till 1-3-97, there was no entry for 'Ready Mix Concrete' in the Tariff. Only with effect from 1-3-97, the entry for 'Ready Mix Concrete' was introduced in the Tariff as C.H. 3823. The appellants have their factory at Bhogasamudram where they are alleged to have manufactured 'Ready Mix Concrete'. The case of the Revenue is that the goods manufactured in the factory is RMC which is liable to pay duty. The learned Advocate contended that what was manufactured is not RMC but 'Concrete Mix'. He urged that the RMC is normally delivered to the buyer's vehicle in plastic condition for being carried to the buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as 'Ready Mix Concrete' (RMC) being manufactured by advanced and sophisticated process confirming to method of production prescribed for RMC. The learned SDR urged that it is the method of production which is an important factor for deciding whether the item is 'Concrete Mix' or otherwise. 5.We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Adjudicating authority has elaborated in depth about the process of manufacture of RMC in the impugned order. He has also discussed the manufacturing facility in the factory of the appellants at Bhogasamudram. An extract of the Para 33 of the impugned order is given below :- Thus it is clear beyond doubt that RMC"33. is a product different from CM and is so understood in trade and commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves and water. After a detailed examination, he has come to the conclusion that the product manufactured by the appellants is only RMC. Further we observe that the ratio of the case law cited by the learned SDR is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence we uphold the finding of the Original Authority classifying the impugned goods as 'RMC'. In Para 35 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has given clear justification for invoking the extended period of five years. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty under Section 11AC is reduced to Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten lakhs only). There is no justification to levy penalty under Rule 209A on Shri D.V.V.S.K. Chowdary, Construction Manager. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
