9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the decision given by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the disputed issues, it is found that the amendment carried out w.e.f. 29.04.2010 makes it abundantly clear that a legislature did not intend to tax the parts, components and assemblies of earthmoving equipment etc. under the Head "Automobiles"; therefore, to this extent, the adjudged demands for the period prior to 29.04.2010 cannot be sustained. Further, it is noted that the respondents-assessee have paid Central Excise duty for the period post 29.04.2010, and such duties paid have also been appropriated by the Department vide Order-in-Original dated 13.07.2012. Thus, there is no dispute in this regard for the period post 29.04.2010, which is required to be examined in this case. Moreover, Larger Bench has deliberated on the issue whether the earthmoving equipment etc. can be considered as automobiles in the case of respondent-JCB India Ltd. itself. In finally answering the issues on which reference was made to Larger Bench, on account of difference of opinion between two Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and based on the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held 'The amendment made in the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said premises were not registered with the Central Excise department and no payment of central excise duty was made. 2.3 The present dispute is in relation to the activities undertaken at these warehouse/dealers' premises, where the activity of packing, re-packing and labelling was carried out by the appellants. The appellants had procured spare parts of earthmoving equipment from abroad/local independent vendors, and then packed, labelled with requisite details including MRP and affix the logo of the appellants' company. Thereafter, the spare parts so packed are sold in the market or directly to industrial customers. Since the spare parts are not manufactured by the appellants-assessee, but merely packed and sold, no excise duty was paid on the same by them during the period of dispute from July, 2007 to April, 2011. However, consequent to certain legal changes made by the government in May, 2011, the appellants took registration under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and started paying Central Excise on such activities post May, 2011 and onwards. 2.4 The department had interpreted that the activity of packing, labelling etc. amounts to 'manufacture' in terms of the definition pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2014. 2.7 On the above basis, the appellant M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.91 of 2016; and the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of this case vide judgement delivered on 06.04.2023, by holding that since the impugned judgment and order is based almost entirely on the decision in the case of JCB India Limited, which is being considered by the larger bench of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal dated 08.10.2015 was quashed and set aside; and the appeal filed by the appellant-Larsen & Toubro Limited was restored to the file of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the said matter was also placed before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal for consideration on the legal issues. During the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the Civil Appeal filed in the case of JCB India Limited vide judgement dated 07.02.2023, by setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 08.11.2013 and by remanding it back the case for fresh consideration of the issues under dispute by constitution of Larger Bench. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are extracted below: "5. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further note that the respondents-assessee have paid Central Excise duty for the period post 29.04.2010, and such duties paid have also been appropriated by the Department vide Order-in-Original dated 13.07.2012. Thus, there is no dispute in this regard for the period post 29.04.2010, which is required to be examined by us in this case. Moreover, Larger Bench has deliberated on the issue whether the earthmoving equipment etc. can be considered as automobiles in the case of respondent-JCB India Ltd. itself. Larger Bench has also considered various decisions in this regard and the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and concluded as follows: "84. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 uses the term "motor vehicle" and does not refer to "automobile". It deals with the requirement of vehicles to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The definition of "motor vehicles in the Motor Vehicles Act cannot, therefore, be applied to ascertain the meaning of "automobiles" for the purpose of levy of excise duty on parts, components and assemblies of "automobiles". (emphasis supplied) 85. The objective of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ministry of Finance on 28.02.2011 make it clear that duty would be payable on parts and components of earth moving machines only w.e.f. 29.04.2010. 89. What follows from the aforesaid discussion is that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
