AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Review Order No.09/CEX-R/2010-11 dated 03.01.2011 passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners assailing the Order-in- Original No. 14/CEX/2010 dated 28.09.2010 (referred to as 'impugned order') passed in the case of M/s JCB India Limited, Pune by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, Pune. 2.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: 2.2 The respondents-assessee is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture of construction machines viz., hydraulic excavator loader (Backhoe Loaders), hydraulic loader (wheel loading shovel/shover loaders), road rollers (compactors) which are generally known as earth moving equipment classifiable under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents also have Spare Parts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by issue of Show Cause Notices dated 22.12.2009 and 23.08.2010. The said SCNs were adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I by holding that the respondents-assessee has succeeded on all grounds and accordingly they are not liable to pay any duty on the parts and components which are packed and sold with MRP with their own logo prior to 29.04.2010. Further, he also held that it will be unjustifiable to hold that the respondents-assessee had kept the department in dark of their activities of packing, repacking, labelling and relabelling and hence the extended period invoked under proviso to Section 11A ibid is also not available to the department. Accordingly, he dropped the proceedings initiated under the said two SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by the Mumbai Bench Tribunal. We remand the matter/Appeal to the Tribunal to be heard along with Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793/2012 and Appeal Nos. E/1161/2011 and E/2968/2011 and to be heard by the larger Bench to be constituted by the President of the Tribunal, as per the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal dated 01.08.2016 and the issues which are referred to the larger Bench. 6. We direct the President of the Tribunal to constitute the larger Bench within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order and thereafter to finally decide and dispose of the issues referred to the larger Bench, referred to hereinabove, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of 6 months from the date of con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 adjudged demands for the period prior to 29.04.2010 cannot be sustained. We further note that the respondents-assessee have paid Central Excise duty for the period post 29.04.2010, and such duties paid have also been appropriated by the Department vide Order-in-Original dated 13.07.2012. Thus, there is no dispute in this regard for the period post 29.04.2010, which is required to be examined by us in this case. Moreover, Larger Bench has deliberated on the issue whether the earthmoving equipment etc. can be considered as automobiles in the case of respondent-JCB India Ltd. itself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cover parts of a whole gamut of machines built on a motor vehicle or automobiles chassis with some exceptions. This is not an issue which has been referred to the Larger Bench and so it will not be appropriate to examine this issue. 87. To summarize, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, in its order dated 08.11.2013, placed emphasis on following factors to arrive at a conclusion that earth moving machines are automobiles: (i) The vehicles involved are self-propelled, work with internal combustion engine using fuel, have four wheels and are rubber tyre and thus, have all the characteristic of a motor vehicle; (ii) The earth moving equipment are motor vehicles since they require registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and (iii....