9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1320 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture or not - activity of packing/repacking and affixing logo and MRP on the package of parts/components of Backhoe Loaders Cranes Forklifts and Compactors - Matter referred to Larger Bench due to disagreement between Chandigarh and Mumbai Bench. Whether (i) Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Hydra Cranes (ii) Hydraulic Excavator Loader (Backhoe Loaders); (iii) Hydraulic Loader (Wheel Loading Shovel/Shovel Loaders); (iv) Road Rollers (Compactors) are automobiles because only then can excise duty be levied on packing or repacking of parts components and assemblies of these goods? HELD THAT - There was disagreement between Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal for which the matter was referred to Larger Bench by order dated 01.08.2016. The earth moving machines involved in the present appeals are not automobiles . It would not be appropriate to borrow the meaning of the word automobile or motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 merely because the word automobile has not been defined in the Central Excise Act Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government. In such a situation it would be appropriate to refer to the dictionaries to find out a general sense in which the word automobile is understood in common parlance. Automobiles therefore are conveyances for transportation of passengers and goods on road as also been understood by the department in the various Circulars issued from time to time. Serial no. 100A inserted in the Third Schedule w.e.f. 29.04.2010 is prospective and likewise serial no. 109 inserted in notification no. 49/2008 by notification no. 19/2010 dated 29.04.2010 issued under section 4A of the Central Excise Act is prospective in nature. The reference made to the Larger Bench is accordingly answered in the following manner (i) As the word automobile has not been defined in the Central Excise Act the Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government it would be permissible to refer to the dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance and it will not be appropriate to refer to the definition of the word automobile occurring in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 or the Motor Vehicles Act 1988; and (ii) The amendment made in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act by Finance Act 2011 w.e.f. 29.04.2010 by adding serial no. 100A to the Third Schedule is prospective in nature. The appeals may now be placed for hearing before the Division Bench.
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "automobiles" under the Central Excise Act/Rules. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 11/2011 dated 24.03.2011 regarding duty on parts, components, and assemblies. Summary: Issue 1: Definition of "Automobiles" The Tribunal examined whether the term "automobiles" should be defined using the definitions from the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, or the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, or if it should be defined based on dictionary meanings and common parlance. The Tribunal concluded that since the term "automobiles" is not defined in the Central Excise Act, it is appropriate to refer to dictionaries. Various dictionaries uniformly define "automobiles" as vehicles primarily designed for transporting passengers or goods on roads. Therefore, the Tribunal held that earth-moving machines like loaders, cranes, forklifts, and compactors are not "automobiles" as they are not primarily meant for transportation on roads but are construction equipment. Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 11/2011 The Tribunal examined whether Notification No. 11/2011 dated 24.03.2011, which imposed duty on parts, components, and assemblies of certain goods from 29.04.2010, is clarificatory and applicable retrospectively or mandatory and applicable only from 29.04.2010 onwards. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment made by adding serial no. 100A to the Third Schedule of the Central Excise Act is prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment imposes a new burden of levy and is not merely clarificatory. Additional Observations: - The Tribunal noted that the definition of "automobiles" from other statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act cannot be applied to the Central Excise Act as each statute serves different purposes. - The Tribunal referred to CBEC Circulars which clarified that earth-moving machinery cannot be considered as "automobiles." - The Tribunal cited various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that statutory definitions from one Act should not be mechanically applied to another Act with a different purpose. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that earth-moving machines are not "automobiles," and the amendment made by Notification No. 11/2011 is prospective, effective from 29.04.2010, and not applicable retrospectively. The appeals were directed to be placed before the Division Bench for further proceedings.
|
