SC: DRT Auction Sale Valid Despite Failure to Serve Order XXI Rule 22 Notice  ||  SC: Legal Representatives Entitled to Motor Accident Compensation without Financial Dependency  ||  SC: Re-Employed Officers May be Classified Differently from Regular Officers  ||  Supreme Court Questions Union's Opposition to Global Food Package Labelling Norms  ||  SC: S.42 NDPS Act Compliance Need Not be Absolute When Immediate Seizure is Required  ||  SC Clarifies Whether Tenancy Ends after Landlord-Tenant Execute Agreement to Sell  ||  SC Levies Rs. 10 Lakh Cost on Reliance Industries for Hindering 20-Year-Old NTPC Suit  ||  P&H HC: Authorities Obligated to Act if Protests Escalate into Violence  ||  Allahabad HC: Allottee Aware of Reduced Lease Area Not Entitled to Full Zero-Period Benefit  ||  Delhi HC: 2015 Commercial Courts Act Applicable to Suits Instituted Before its Enactment    

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - (Supreme Court) (06 Oct 2015)

Location of manufacture not bonded to quality and type of concrete

MANU/SC/1127/2015

Excise

The Supreme Court ruled that a manufacturer of concrete mix, manufacturing it for captive consumption cannot claim exemption from excise duty on the basis of it being concrete mix solely because it was manufactured on-site. It noted that Larsen & Toubro was preparing concrete with a precision, and with certain additives, that rendered it more sophisticated than run-of-the-mill concrete mix, bringing it into the realm of high quality ready mix concrete. Tellingly, L&T required quality concrete for its own under-construction high quality concrete factory. The Court rejected the argument that since the concrete was manufactured on-site, it would necessarily render the concoction ‘concrete mix’.

Relevant : Exemption of certain excisable goods MANU/EXCT/0002/1997 Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/TN/2826/2002

Tags : CONCRETE   EXCISE   EXEMPTION   PREPARATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved