TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 Appellant brought their spare parts [Chapter Heading 8431] from its own manufacturing unit or from vendors and after packing, labelling, affixing logo and MRP on the package thereof, sold these to its dealers. The department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011 to the Appellant proposing to demand excise duty on the repacked spare parts on the premise that these goods are parts of the Motor Vehicles/Automobiles and hence these parts are covered under Serial No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Excise Act and accordingly, the activity of packing/repacking, labelling, affixing logo and MRP on the package of such parts, carried out by the Appellant in its spare parts division, amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act. The Show Cause Notice also proposed the demand of penalties on Shri Vijay Agarwal, Director and Shri P. K. Bansa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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." She also submits that the department filed the rectification application seeking rectification in the Interim Order dated 06.06.2023 but the said application was also rejected by the Larger Bench vide order dated 08.01.2024 as not maintainable. 4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the activity of labelling of the goods meant for use in 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.40,06,002/- along with interest. She prays that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4.3 As regard the invocation of extended period, the learned Counsel submits that the Appellant have regularly been filing the returns and the activity undertaken by the Appellant was always in knowledge of the department. She further submits that the Appellant was under the bona fide belief that the activity of labelling on earthmoving equipment does not amount to manufacture. Moreover, the issue involved in the instant case involves the interpretation of complex legal issues and there has been a divergent view of the Tribunal, therefore, the department cannot attribute mala fide intention to the Appellant; hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In this regard, she relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. CCE, Bangalore-I [Final Order No. 20098/2021 dated 06.04.2021 CESTAT Bangalore]. 4.4 As regard the interest and penalties, the learned Counsel submits that when the demand of duty itself is not sustainable then the question of interest and penalties does not arise. Penalties under Rule 26 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;automobile' has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, the Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government, it would be permissible to refer to the dictionaries 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 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. 7. Fur....