https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767570 The CESTAT Mumbai held that excise duty demands on re-packed spare parts of earthmoving equipment classified as automobile parts under Sl. No.100 of the Third Schedule were not sustainable for the period October 2006 to April 28, 2010. Following a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that the 2010 amendment clarifying that earthmoving equipment parts should not be taxed under "Automobiles" was prospective in nature. The appellant's activities of packing, re-packing and labelling at the central warehouse did not constitute manufacture, and the classification of these parts as automobiles was inappropriate. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767570 The CESTAT Mumbai held that excise duty demands on re-packed spare parts of earthmoving equipment classified as automobile parts under Sl. No.100 of the Third Schedule were not sustainable for the period October 2006 to April 28, 2010. Following a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that the 2010 amendment clarifying that earthmoving equipment parts should not be taxed under "Automobiles" was prospective in nature. The appellant's activities of packing, re-packing and labelling at the central warehouse did not constitute manufacture, and the classification of these parts as automobiles was inappropriate. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767570