TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment viz., hydraulic excavators, dozer, wheel loaders, motor graders, tippers and dumpers, generally known as 'earthmoving equipment', on which applicable duties of customs and additional duties of customs were paid by them at the time of import. They also have their Central Warehouse situated in Nagpur, where they undertake the activity of packing, after attaching an identification tag giving details of part number, description, quantity, Delivery note, item number and location, along with name of the appellant as 'Larsen & Toubro Limited, Nagpur'. M/s Proficient Equipment Solutions, Nagpur was one of the dealers of the appellant Larsen & Toubro Limited. The appellants were of the understanding that since no manufacturing activity is carried out in such packing, repacking and labelling of spare parts of earthmoving equipment, the said premises were not registered with the Central Excise department and no payment of central excise duty was made. 2.3 The present dispute is in relation to the activities undertaken at these warehouse/dealers' premises, where the activity of packing, re-packing and labelling was carried out by the appellants. The appellants had procured spare parts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the views expressed in the Order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Regional Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of JCB India Limited involving identical facts and legal point of dispute, the issues were referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In the meantime, against the order passed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in JCB India Limited case, the appellants-assessee in that case had filed Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above circumstances, the Larger Bench vide order dated 27.02.2017, disposed of the case giving liberty to the assessee-appellants to approach the Tribunal again after final verdict by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the appellants in that case have already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the disputed issue in Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2014. 2.7 On the above basis, the appellant M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.91 of 2016; and the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of this case vide judgement delivered on 06.04.2023, by holding that since the impugned judgment and order is based almost entirely on the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the form of a paper book for this case. 4.1 We find that the issue involved in these appeals, being identical in all such cases, were decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a common order vide Interim Order Nos. 2-4/2023; 16-17/2023; and 21-25/2023 all dated 06.06.2023. The present appeals being No. E/86741/2013; E/86747/2013 and E/86748/2013 were also covered by such order of the Larger Bench. 4.2 On careful reading of the decision given by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the disputed issues, 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 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 Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... automobiles and are required to meet the air pollution norms 57 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 88. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, while referring the matter to Larger Bench by order dated 01.08.2016, expressed disagreement with the views expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal for the following reasons: (i) As the expression "automobile" 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 "au....