Substitution of the exemption entry retrospectively extended the exemption to site-manufactured ready-mix concrete.

The appellant manufactured ready-mix concrete (RMC) at its construction site and used it captively in developing its residential projects.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., the Department issued a show-cause notice proposing duty for October 2014 to February 2016; a corrigendum increased the proposed demand from ₹41,54,714 to ₹96,17,555.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed an equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld that order, leading to this appeal

Whether the substitution of Entry 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE by Notification No. 12/2016-CE, expressly including RMC manufactured and used at a construction site, operated retrospectively so as to exempt the appellant’s clearances during October 2014 to February 2016

Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to demand duty in the circumstances of the case

Entry 144 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE exempted “concrete mix” manufactured at a construction site for use in construction work at that site; Notification No. 12/2016-CE substituted the entry to expressly include “Concrete Mix or Ready-mix Concrete (RMC)” subject to the stated site-manufacture and use requirements

Relying on authorities including Shamarao V. Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana, Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association, and CCE & ST v. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal applied the principle that, in the circumstances considered by those decisions, a substituted provision may be read as incorporated into the earlier enactment from its inception

The demand was proposed under Section 11A and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The Tribunal found that the appellant manufactured RMC at the construction site and used it in its own construction projects

It treated the 2016 amendment as a substitution of Entry 144 and, applying the cited authorities, held that the amended entry had retrospective effect from 17 March 2012. Since the amended entry expressly covered site-manufactured RMC used at that site, the appellant qualified for exemption during the disputed period

The Tribunal also agreed that the extended period could not be invoked, though it did not set out a separate, detailed limitation analysis

It set aside the duty demand on merits and consequently set aside the related interest and penalty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law