TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Excavators and Loaders etc. in its unit at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. Apart from the manufacturing unit set-up by it at Plot No. 55, Sector 6, Faridabad, the petitioner-company also has its unit at 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh where it packs, repacks, marks and affixes its Logo 'JCB' on the parts that are supplied to the petitioner-company by other manufacturers. 2. On the basis of an intelligence report received by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence that the petitioner-company was engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts in the unit mentioned above and that the same was not registered as required under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') and also that on account of non-registration of the unit, the manufactured automobile parts were being sold in the market without payment of excise duty, a search was conducted by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence on 8-7-2009 at both the premises, one situated at Faridabad and the another at Ballabhgarh. In the course of search and seizure, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seizure of goods and the prayer for a mandamus directing return of the bank guarantee proceeds primarily on the basis that the goods in question do not answer the description of automobile parts referred to in Entry No. 100 in Schedule-III of the Act. According to the petitioner, the parts seized by the respondents from the premises of the petitioner-company are parts and components of earth removing machinery namely excavators and loaders which are not automobile parts within the meaning of entry referred to above. Reliance in support of that contention is placed by the petitioner-company upon Circulars dated 11-7-1990 and 16-12-2008. These circulars according to the Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company make it abundantly clear that excavators and loaders used as earth removing machinery are not automobiles within the meaning of entry No. 100 appearing in IIIrd Schedule to the Act. Consequently, packing, repacking or marking of such parts would not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. It was contended by Mr. Aggarwal that packing, repacking or marking of goods would constitute manufacture only if the same are g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iles includes items like batteries, brake assembly, tyres, tubes, flaps, IC engines, ball bearing etc. It is alleged that in the course of investigations conducted hithertofore, has revealed that the petitioner in its registered premises was manufacturing not only excavators but also other special/multi purpose and tyre mounted vehicles which required to be registered with the Road Transport Authorities. These vehicles cannot be treated as earth removing machinery like excavators. In conclusion, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. It was argued by Mr. Ghuman, learned counsel for the respondents that investigation of the case has been hampered by the petitioner on account of persistent default in furnishing the requisite information and data demanded by the officers conducting investigation. Mr. Ghuman has drawn our attention in this regard to an affidavit of Sanjay Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Pune and the documents enclosed by him with it, to argue that despite repeated summons the petitioner- company has been withholding the information and dilly-dallying furnishing of data demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner-company to have the unit registered and to pay excise duty on the same before removing the goods for sale. Whether or not the parts seized from the petitioner's unit are automobile parts is a matter regarding which the Investigating Agency has yet to draw a final conclusion. The Investigating Officer has asked for information and is in the process of formulating a final opinion on the subject before any further action on the basis of any such conclusion is initiated against the petitioner. The question, therefore is whether we ought to intervene at this stage to scuttle any such investigation and quash the ongoing process by declaring that parts seized from the petitioner's unit are not actually automobile parts. Our answer is in the negative. We do not think that we would be justified in prejudging the issue or clutching at the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency or the statutory authorities who may eventually be called upon to determine whether the parts seized from the premises of the petitioner-company, are automobile parts or the same are parts used in machineries other than automobiles. 8. It is true that in cases where complete lack of jurisdiction on the pa....