TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV, whereby the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.6,07,44,253/- along with interest and equal penalty against M/s Action Construction Equipment Ltd ('Appellant No.1'). Penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- on Shri P. K. Bansal ('Appellant No.2') and penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on Shri Vijay Agarwal ('Appellant No.3') were also imposed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant M/s Action Construction Equipment Ltd is engaged in the manufacture of construction equipments viz. Back Hoe Loader [Chapter Heading 8429], Hydra Cranes [Chapter Heading 8426], Forklift etc. The Appellant has a spare part division for sale of these goods wherein the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2014 (312) ELT 593 (Tri. Mumbai)]; the CESTAT Chandigarh disagreed with the said decision of the CESTAT Mumbai and vide its Interim Order No. 12-14/2016 dated 01.08.2016 referred the matter to the Larger Bench for consideration of the following questions: "(i) How to define expression 'automobiles' when it is not defined in Central Excise Act/Rules or any Notification issued thereunder. Can the expression given in the Acts, namely, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be adopted or the meaning of the expression 'automobiles' can be assigned from the uniformally defined in the various dictionaries and known in common parlance? (ii) The Notification No. 11/2011 dated 24.03.2011 g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earth-moving equipment does not amount to manufacture and this issue is no longer res integra as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, vide its Interim Order dated 06.06.2023, has decided this issue in favour of the Assessees by holding that the earth-moving equipment, excavators etc cannot be called 'automobiles' and thus affixing the labels covered under Entry 100 of the Third Schedule to the Act is not applicable in the present case. She further submits that undoubtedly in the present case, the goods in dispute are cleared for use in the earth-moving equipment which were not covered under Entry 100 of the Third Schedule; thus, the said goods cannot be said to be parts or components of automobiles as earth-moving equipment does not qualify as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard, she relies on the following decisions: * Action Construction Equipment Ltd., Shri P. K. Bansal, Shri Vijay Agarwal, JCB India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Delhi-lV (Vice-Versa) [2024 (6) TMI 1102- CESTAT LB = Interim Order dated 06.06.2023] * M/s BEML Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore [2023 (10) TMI 873-CESTAT Bangalore] * M/s Donaldson India Filter Systems Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon-II [2024 (7) TMI 544-CESTAT Chandigarh] * M/s JCB India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad [2025 (1) TMI 672-CESTAT Chandigarh] She further submits that for the period from April 2010 to September 2010, the Appellant have already de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to confiscation. Whereas, in the instant case, the department has not produced any evidence showing mala fide intention and involvement of the Appellant No.2 and Appellant No.3 in respect of the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice as well as in the impugned order. She further submits that the goods in dispute are not liable for confiscation as the activity of labelling undertaken by the Appellant on the goods in dispute does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act. In this regard, she relies on the following decisions wherein it has been held that mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty under Rule 26: * Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Versus M/s Vee Gee Faucets Pvt. Ltd. [2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance and it will not be appropriate to refer to the definition of the word 'automobile' occurring in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and (ii) The amendment made in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act by Finance Act, 2011 w.e.f. 29.04.2010 by adding Serial No. 100A to the Third Schedule is prospective in nature." We also find that the rectification application filed by the department, seeking rectification in the Interim Order dated 06.06.2023, was also rejected by the Larger Bench vide order dated 08.01.2024. Further, we find that once the Larger Bench has settled the issue in favour....