https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767180 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the department's appeal regarding classification of earthmoving equipment parts as automobiles under Central Excise Tariff Act. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd, the Tribunal held that earthmoving equipment parts cannot be classified as automobiles for excise duty purposes. The amendment effective 29.04.2010 clarified that legislature did not intend to tax such parts under automobile category. Adjudged demands for pre-29.04.2010 period were unsustainable as respondent's packing, repacking and labeling activities did not constitute manufacture, and no dispute existed for post-amendment period as duties were already paid and appropriated. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767180 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the department's appeal regarding classification of earthmoving equipment parts as automobiles under Central Excise Tariff Act. Following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd, the Tribunal held that earthmoving equipment parts cannot be classified as automobiles for excise duty purposes. The amendment effective 29.04.2010 clarified that legislature did not intend to tax such parts under automobile category. Adjudged demands for pre-29.04.2010 period were unsustainable as respondent's packing, repacking and labeling activities did not constitute manufacture, and no dispute existed for post-amendment period as duties were already paid and appropriated. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767180