TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1057
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Warehouse at Nagpur. 2.3 At their Central warehouse, the appellant procured other spare parts of earth moving equipment through domestic and foreign suppliers. Further, spare parts manufactured from its own factories were also received in bulk and packed condition at such Central warehouse. The disputed spare parts in question were used for the following models of earthmoving equipment viz. Hydraulic Excavator Loader (Backhoe Loader- Tata 315V Model); Motor Grader (TG 14 Model); Wheel Loader (TWL 3034 Model); Vibratory Soil Compactor (Road Roller-Model VM3). The appellant undertakes the activity of packing, repacking, and attaching an identification tag giving details of part number, description, quantity, MRP etc. before these were sent to subsequent sales to their dealers and industrial consumers. The appellant was 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 required to be registered with the Central Excise department and therefore no payment of central excise duty was made. 2.4 The present dispute is in relation to the activities undertaken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Regional Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of J.C.B. Limited involving identical factual matrix, and therefore the issues were referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2017, giving liberty to the assessee-appellant to approach the Tribunal again after final verdict by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the appellant have already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the disputed issue in Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2014. 3.2 In the meantime, against the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of J.C.B. Limited, the assessee had filed a Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the case vide judgement dated 07.02.2023. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 08.11.2013 confirming the duty demands raised by the department and remanded the case for consideration of the issues under dispute by constitution of Larger Bench. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is extracted below: "5. In view of the above, without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, we set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appeal being No. E/85911/2013 is also covered by such order of the Larger Bench. 5.2 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. Further, it is a fact on record that Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was retrospectively amended vide Finance Act, 2011 read with Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 29.4.2010. Accordingly, from 29.4.2010, the appellant started discharging the excise duty on activity of packing / re-packing and affixing MRP undertaken on spare parts at warehouse, on the basis of MRP-based assessment. This was also confirmed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vide their letter dated 07.01.2014 submitting therewith the verification report dated 30.12.2013 received from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Nagpur that the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce they require registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and (iii) The earth moving equipment are 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 th....