https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767671 CESTAT Mumbai held that packing, re-packing and labelling activities at central warehouse did not constitute manufacture for excise duty purposes. The appellant's spare parts were incorrectly classified under automobiles category in Third Schedule. Following Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd., demands for period October 2006 to April 2010 were unsustainable as retrospective amendment w.e.f. 29.04.2010 clarified legislature's intent not to tax earthmoving equipment parts under automobile head. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767671 CESTAT Mumbai held that packing, re-packing and labelling activities at central warehouse did not constitute manufacture for excise duty purposes. The appellant's spare parts were incorrectly classified under automobiles category in Third Schedule. Following Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd., demands for period October 2006 to April 2010 were unsustainable as retrospective amendment w.e.f. 29.04.2010 clarified legislature's intent not to tax earthmoving equipment parts under automobile head. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767671