https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779208 CESTAT held for the appellants: the Larger Bench ruled that earth-moving equipment and excavators are not "automobiles," so labels under Entry 100A of the Third Schedule (Finance Act, 2011) do not apply retrospectively; the amendment is prospective. Because the issue involved a genuine divergence of tribunal views, extended limitation could not be invoked against the appellants. Penalties under Rule 26 were unsustainable as the department failed to prove knowledge that goods were liable to confiscation and the demand was set aside on merit. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779208 CESTAT held for the appellants: the Larger Bench ruled that earth-moving equipment and excavators are not "automobiles," so labels under Entry 100A of the Third Schedule (Finance Act, 2011) do not apply retrospectively; the amendment is prospective. Because the issue involved a genuine divergence of tribunal views, extended limitation could not be invoked against the appellants. Penalties under Rule 26 were unsustainable as the department failed to prove knowledge that goods were liable to confiscation and the demand was set aside on merit. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779208