TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise Tariff Act; the appellants import the filters and affix the labels and supply to various manufacturers of earth moving equipment etc. Pursuant to an audit, Central Excise officers visited the premises and found that there was shortage in the stock of air/ liquid filters and issued a show-cause notice dated 04.11.2011 demanding duty of Rs.11,69,829/- along with applicable interest; the demand was confirmed vide order dated 25.07.2013 and on an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 31.10.2013 set aside the demand and the Order-in-Original on the grounds that the air/ liquid filters alleged to have been manufactured by the appellants were not part of automobiles and therefore, did not fall under Section 2 (f) (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944; Department is in appeal against such setting aside vide Appeal No. E/51019/2014. 2.1. Another show cause notice dated 30.011.2012 was issued to the appellants seeking to recover Central Excise duty of Rs.8,28,84,141/- for the period November 2007 to June 2012, invoking extended period and proposing to impose penalty and interest on the company; seeking to impose penalty on Shri Sunil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents and assemblies of certain vehicles under Chapter 84 were also notified w.e.f. 29.04.2010, but since these goods were not simultaneously included in the Third Schedule, they were now being included retrospectively w.e.f. 27.02.2010 and 29.04.2010, respectively. She submits that the goods cleared by the appellants are not parts of automobiles and at least till 29.04.2010, they are not chargeable to duty. She relies on the following cases: Action Construction Equipment Ltd and Ors v Commissioner, Central Excise, & Customs, Delhi-IV and Ors (supra) M/S. Action Construction Equipment Ltd., Shri P.K. Bansal, Shri VijayAgarwal, M/S. Jcb India Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise, &Customs, Delhi-lv (Vice-Versa) 2024 (6) TMI 1102 - CESTAT Chandigarh- LB M/s BEML Ltd. Versus the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore 2023 (10) TMI 873 - CESTAT Bangalore 5. Learned Counsel also submits that labeling or re-labeling is not defined under the Act or Tariff Act; Ministry vide F.No.354/285/2011-TRU dated 08.12.2011 clarified that the process of labeling or re-labeling would amount to manufacture only when there is a value addition; in the instant case, there is no value addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8/2021] Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi - lii Versus M/S Vee Gee Faucets Pvt.Ltd. 2015 (329) E.L.T. 76 (P & H) Meenakshi Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Ahmedabad-III, 2019 (370) E.L.Τ. 1330 (Tri. - Ahmd.) 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the Grounds of Appeal in respect of the Revenue Appeal No. E/51019/2014 and reiterates the findings of the impugned order in respect of other appeals. 9. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the amendment carried out w.e.f. 29.04.2010 makes it abundantly clear that a legislature did not intend to tax the parts, components and assemblies of earthmoving equipment etc. under the Head "Automobiles"; therefore, to this extent, the demand for the period prior to 29.04.2010 cannot be sustained. Moreover, Larger Bench has deliberated on the issue whether the earthmoving equipment etc. can be considered as automobiles in the case of Action Construction Equipment Ltd. (supra); Larger Bench has considered various decisions in this regard and the Circular issued by the Board and concluded that: 84. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 uses the term "motor vehicle" and does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mobile" has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, it would not be permissible to adopt the definition of the word "automobile" in other enactments and, therefore, it would not be possible to agree with the views expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (ii) Various dictionaries have defined the expression "automobile" to mean a car or goods carrier, and (iii) The amendment made in the Third Schedule w.e.f. 29.04.2010 and the clarification given by the Ministry of Finance on 28.02.2011 make it clear that duty would be payable on parts and components of earth moving machines only w.e.f. 29.04.2010. 89. What follows from the aforesaid discussion is that the earth moving machines involved in the present appeals are not "automobiles". It would not be appropriate to borrow the meaning of the word "automobile" or motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981 merely because the word "automobile" has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to refer to the dictionaries to find out a ....