2023 (2) TMI 1130 - SC - Central Excise

Interpretation of statute - defining expression automobiles when it is not defined in Central Excise Act/Rules or any Notification issued thereunder - Can the expression given in the Acts, namely, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be adopted or the meaning of the expression automobiles can be assigned from the uniformly defined in the various dictionaries and known in common parlance? - whether N/N. 11/2011 dated 24.03.2011 giving the effect of demand of duty w.e.f. 29.04.2010 on the parts, components and assemblies of goods falling under Tariff Item No. 8426 41 00, headings 8417, 8429 and sub heading 8430 10 is clarificatory and applicable prior to 29.04.2010 mandatory and applicable from 29.04.2010 onwards? HELD THAT - Considering the fact that there is a conflict between the two Benches of the Tribunal, namely, Bombay Bench and the Chandigarh Bench and subsequently the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has referred the matter and the issues, which are also the issues involved in the present Appeals, to the larger Bench and therefore, the issues involved in the case of the very assessee, namely, JCB India Limited are at large to be considered and decided by the larger Bench of the Tribunal, it is deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the present Appeals along with Excise Nos. E/791-793/2012 and the issues be resolved, decided and disposed of by the larger Bench of the Tribunal, as ordered by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal in the order dated 01.08.2016. Without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Mumbai Bench Tribunal is set aside - matter/Appeal remanded to the Tribunal to be heard along with Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793/2012 and Appeal Nos. E/1161/2011 and E/2968/2011 and to be heard by the larger Bench to be constituted by the President of the Tribunal, as per the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal dated 01.08.2016 and the issues which are referred to the larger Bench.

Summary

Issues:
Conflict between two benches of the Tribunal regarding the definition of automobiles and the applicability of a specific notification.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by JCB India Limited against the decision of the Mumbai Bench Tribunal. The Chandigarh Bench Tribunal raised doubts on the Mumbai Bench Tribunal's decision and directed the matter to be heard by a larger bench to consider key issues. These issues include defining automobiles, the applicability of a specific notification, and the demand of duty on parts and components. The Chandigarh Bench Tribunal ordered the present appeal to be heard along with other related appeals by a larger bench to resolve the conflicts between the two benches.

The Supreme Court, without delving into the merits of the case, set aside the Mumbai Bench Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a joint hearing with related appeals before a larger bench. The President of the Tribunal was directed to constitute the larger bench within four weeks and to resolve the issues referred within six months from the date of constitution. The judgment emphasizes the need for a comprehensive resolution by the larger bench on the conflicting issues raised by the two benches, ensuring a consistent interpretation of the law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focuses on resolving the conflict between the Mumbai Bench and the Chandigarh Bench regarding the definition of automobiles and the applicability of a specific notification. The decision to remand the matter to a larger bench underscores the importance of uniformity and consistency in interpreting legal provisions. The directive to the President of the Tribunal to constitute the larger bench and resolve the issues within a specified timeframe highlights the court's commitment to expeditiously address the legal complexities involved in the case.