2014 (12) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal: Duty demands confirmed, penalties set aside, duty liability ruled out, manufacturing activities attract duty.

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD, J KUMAR PROFICIENT EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NAGPUR

The Tribunal confirmed duty demands for one period, set aside penalties and confiscation, and ruled out duty liability for another period due to the ... Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - whether the activity undertaken by the appellant of packing/re-packing, labelling/re-labelling and fixing of MRP on automobile parts amounts to manufacture and consequently they are liable to pay duty - Held that:- although the appellants have no case on merit but on limitation they are having a case as the show-cause notice dated 09.08.2012 has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Hence, the proceedings under the said show-cause notice are set aside. However demand pertaining to other period is upheld as same are within the limitation period. As in this case, the extended period is not invokable therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, confiscation is set aside. Consequently, redemption fine is not imposable. Following decision of JCB India Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 632 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - penalties in this case are not warranted - However, demand confirmed under other SCN is within limitation period hence confirmed - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Whether the activity of packing/re-packing, labelling/re-labelling, and fixing MRP on automobile parts constitutes manufacturing and attracts duty liability.2. Whether the parts in question are considered automobile parts or earth moving equipment.3. Whether the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority are justified.4. Whether penalties and confiscation imposed on the main appellant and co-appellants are valid.5. Whether the extended period of limitation was appropriately invoked in issuing the show-cause notices.Issue 1: Activity Constituting Manufacturing and Duty LiabilityThe main issue in the case revolved around determining whether the activities of packing/re-packing, labelling/re-labelling, and fixing MRP on automobile parts amount to manufacturing, thereby attracting duty liability. The appellant argued that the parts were not automobile parts but earth moving equipment. However, the adjudicating authority considered them as automobile parts and confirmed the demands, including penalties and confiscation. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving Earth Moving equipment as automobile parts and concluded that the appellants were liable to pay duty as automobile parts, dismissing the appellant's contention.Issue 2: Classification of Parts as Automobile Parts or Earth Moving EquipmentThe dispute also centered on whether the parts in question should be classified as automobile parts or earth moving equipment. The Tribunal cited a previous case where Earth Moving equipment was deemed to be automobile parts, leading to the decision that the appellants' activities were indeed related to automobile parts, thereby justifying the duty liability.Issue 3: Justification of Demands ConfirmedThe Tribunal examined the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority and found them to be valid based on the classification of the parts as automobile parts. However, the Tribunal set aside penalties and confiscation, considering the case not fit for imposing such penalties and measures.Issue 4: Validity of Penalties and ConfiscationWhile confirming the demands, the Tribunal deemed penalties and confiscation imposed on the main appellant and co-appellants as unwarranted. As the case was not suitable for invoking penalties and confiscation, these measures were set aside.Issue 5: Invocation of Extended Period of LimitationRegarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation in issuing the show-cause notices, the Tribunal found that one of the notices was within the normal period of limitation, leading to the confirmation of duty for that period. However, as the extended period was not applicable in another notice, the goods were not liable for confiscation, and penalties were not warranted based on a previous ruling allowing the dispute regarding earth moving equipment as automobile parts.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by confirming duty demands for one period, setting aside penalties and confiscation, and ruling out duty liability for another period due to the non-applicability of the extended limitation period.