2025 (6) TMI 1352 - AT - Central Excise

Construction equipment packing activities constitute manufacture only if equipment qualifies as automobiles under Central Excise Act

M/s Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited (Formerly M/s L&T Case Equipment Private Limited) and M/s Shri Balaji Tractor House Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

CESTAT New Delhi held that construction equipment packing/repacking activities constitute manufacture only if equipment qualifies as 'automobiles' under ... Process amounting to manufacture or not - two constructions equipments namely Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe (WTLB) and Vibratory Compactor (VC) are 'Automobiles', because only then the activity of packing/repacking of parts of the WTLB and VC would amount to manufacture under section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- It is this precise issue that was examined and decided by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Action Construction Equipment [2023 (6) TMI 1320 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] where it was held 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. In view of the reference answered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Action Construction Equipment by interim order dated 06.06.2023, it has to be held that the two construction equipments, prior to 29.04.2010, are not ‘Automobiles’. However, w.e.f. 29.04.2010, WTLB in terms Serial No. 100A would be ‘Automobiles’ and the appellant has paid excise duty with interest on the re-packing of all parts of WTLB w.e.f. 29.04.2010 with interest - The amended Serial No. 100A that was inserted in the Third Schedule would not cover Vibrator Compactor as they are classifiable under ETI 8430 50 90, which is not included in Serial No. 100A. Therefore, no excise duty would be leviable on the packing/re-packing of parts of such Vibrator Compactor. The period involved in all the three appeals is from 01.06.2006 to 30.06.2011. As noted above, no excise duty would be leviable on the packing/re-packing of the parts of the two construction equipments prior to 29.04.2010. However, w.e.f. 29.04.2010, the appellants have paid the central excise duty with interest on the packing/repacking of parts of WTLB. Conclusion - i) WTLB and VC are not 'automobiles' prior to 29.04.2010; no excise duty on packing/repacking of their parts before that date. ii) Serial No. 100A applies only from 29.04.2010; excise duty on WTLB parts packing/repacking is leviable from that date, which the appellants have paid. iii) No excise duty liability on packing/repacking of VC parts at any time. The impugned order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:Whether the construction equipments, namely Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe (WTLB) and Vibratory Compactor (VC), qualify as 'automobiles' under the Central Excise Act, thereby attracting excise duty on packing/repacking of their parts under section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act and Serial No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act.Whether the activity of packing/repacking of parts of these construction equipments amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act.The applicability and retrospective effect of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2011 (effective 01.04.2011) which inserted Serial No. 100A in the Third Schedule retrospectively w.e.f. 29.04.2010, covering parts, components, and assemblies of earth moving equipments for excise duty liability.Whether excise duty was leviable on packing/repacking of parts of Vibratory Compactor, which is classifiable under ETI 8430 50 90, not included in Serial No. 100A.The correctness of the Commissioner's order dated 27.02.2012 confirming excise duty demand, interest, penalty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of redemption fine on the appellants.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Are WTLB and VC 'Automobiles' for the purpose of excise duty on packing/repacking of partsRs.Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act defines 'manufacture' to include packing or repacking of goods specified in the Third Schedule. Serial No. 100 of the Third Schedule (prior to 29.04.2010) covered 'parts, components and assemblies of automobiles.' The term 'automobile' is not defined in the Central Excise Act, Central Excise Tariff Act, or Notifications. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in Excise Appeal No. 791 of 2012 (Action Construction Equipment Ltd.) which examined the definition of 'automobile' and the applicability of Serial No. 100 and 100A.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Larger Bench held that it is inappropriate to adopt the definitions of 'automobile' from other statutes such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, since the Central Excise Act does not define the term. Instead, the common parlance meaning as found in dictionaries should be used. The term 'automobile' generally refers to conveyances used for transportation of passengers or goods on roads.The Tribunal reasoned that earth moving machines like WTLB and VC do not fall within this common parlance meaning of 'automobiles' since their primary function is not transportation but earth excavation and compaction. Therefore, prior to 29.04.2010, these machines were not 'automobiles' within the meaning of Serial No. 100.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the nature and function of WTLB and VC, their classification under Excise Tariff Item 8430 50 90, and the absence of their inclusion under Serial No. 100 before 29.04.2010. The Larger Bench's detailed analysis of the legislative history and tariff entries supported this conclusion.Application of law to facts: Since WTLB and VC were not 'automobiles' prior to 29.04.2010, the packing/repacking of their parts did not amount to manufacture attracting excise duty under section 2(f)(iii) and Serial No. 100.Treatment of competing arguments: The department argued that the amendment inserting Serial No. 100A was clarificatory and should apply retrospectively before 29.04.2010. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the amendment was prospective and imposed a new levy effective only from 29.04.2010.Conclusions: WTLB and VC are not 'automobiles' for excise purposes prior to 29.04.2010; hence, no excise duty on packing/repacking of their parts was leviable before that date.Issue 2: Applicability and retrospective effect of Serial No. 100A inserted by Finance Act, 2011Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2011 inserted Serial No. 100A in the Third Schedule retrospectively w.e.f. 29.04.2010, covering parts, components, and assemblies of earth moving equipments under specified tariff headings. The Larger Bench in Action Construction Equipment examined whether this amendment applies before 29.04.2010.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the retrospective insertion of Serial No. 100A is effective only from 29.04.2010 and cannot be applied to any period prior to that date. The amendment introduced a new levy on packing/repacking of parts of earth moving equipments, which was not implicit earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that retrospective amendments must be construed strictly and cannot be read to apply before the date expressly stated.Key evidence and findings: The legislative history showed that prior to 29.04.2010, earth moving equipments were not included under Serial No. 100. The retrospective amendment was aligned with Notification No. 19/2010 dated 29.04.2010 dealing with valuation of excisable goods.Application of law to facts: The excise duty on packing/repacking of parts of WTLB became leviable only from 29.04.2010. The appellants paid duty with interest for the period from 29.04.2010 onwards, which was accepted.Treatment of competing arguments: The department's contention that the amendment was clarificatory and applicable before 29.04.2010 was rejected as inconsistent with the legislative intent and the express retrospective date.Conclusions: Serial No. 100A applies prospectively from 29.04.2010; no duty liability arises before that date on earth moving equipment parts.Issue 3: Excise duty liability on packing/repacking of parts of Vibratory Compactor (VC)Relevant legal framework and precedents: VC is classifiable under ETI 8430 50 90. Serial No. 100A covers parts/components of goods under ETI 8426 41 00, headings 8417, 8429, and sub-heading 8430 10, but does not include ETI 8430 50 90.Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since VC parts are not covered under Serial No. 100A, no excise duty is leviable on packing/repacking of VC parts at any time.Key evidence and findings: The classification of VC parts and the scope of Serial No. 100A were decisive.Application of law to facts: No excise duty demand can be sustained on packing/repacking of VC parts.Treatment of competing arguments: The department's demand was not supported by the tariff classification and legislative provisions.Conclusions: No excise duty liability arises on packing/repacking of VC parts.Issue 4: Legality of the Commissioner's order confirming excise duty, interest, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fineRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Commissioner confirmed duty demand, interest, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and imposed redemption fine under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.Court's interpretation and reasoning: Given the Tribunal's findings that no excise duty was leviable prior to 29.04.2010 on WTLB and at all on VC parts, the demand and penalties related to those periods and goods cannot be sustained. The appellants had paid duty with interest for the period from 29.04.2010 onwards for WTLB parts, which was accepted.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the appellants' compliance post 29.04.2010 and the absence of duty liability before that date.Application of law to facts: The order confirming demand and penalties for periods and goods not liable to duty was set aside. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed on provisionally released goods were also disallowed.Treatment of competing arguments: The department's insistence on confirming the entire demand was rejected as contrary to the legal position established by the Larger Bench and subsequent decisions.Conclusions: The impugned order dated 27.02.2012 is set aside in toto, and all appeals are allowed.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'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.''The amendment made in the Third Schedule by section 73 of the Finance Act, 2011, that came into effect on 01.04.2011, seeks to add serial no. 100A to the Third Schedule retrospectively w.e.f. 29.04.2010. It has to be examined whether this would be applicable even prior to this date in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. ... It is, therefore, clear that levy of excise duty was introduced for the first time by serial no. 100A, by providing that packing or repacking of parts, components and assemblies of earth moving equipments would amount to manufacture. It, therefore, imposes a new burden of levy w.e.f. 29.04.2010 and it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that it was intended to remedy a situation or make the position more explicit which was otherwise implicit.'Core principles established:The term 'automobile' for excise purposes should be understood in its common parlance meaning, not by reference to definitions in other statutes.Earth moving equipments such as WTLB and VC are not 'automobiles' prior to 29.04.2010 and hence packing/repacking of their parts does not amount to manufacture attracting excise duty.The insertion of Serial No. 100A by the Finance Act, 2011 is prospective from 29.04.2010 and cannot be applied retrospectively before that date.Excise duty liability on packing/repacking of parts of earth moving equipment arises only from 29.04.2010 onwards.Vibratory Compactor parts not covered under Serial No. 100A are not liable to excise duty on packing/repacking at any time.Penalties, interest, confiscation, and redemption fines imposed on non-leviable periods or goods cannot be sustained.Final determinations on each issue:WTLB and VC are not 'automobiles' prior to 29.04.2010; no excise duty on packing/repacking of their parts before that date.Serial No. 100A applies only from 29.04.2010; excise duty on WTLB parts packing/repacking is leviable from that date, which the appellants have paid.No excise duty liability on packing/repacking of VC parts at any time.The Commissioner's order confirming duty, interest, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine is set aside.All appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.