Packing or Labeling of Earthmoving Machines Not Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Earthmoving Machines Manufacture SC Ruling
Case Details: Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax vs. J.C.B. India Ltd. (2025) 34 Centax 382 (S.C.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
  • S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Navanjay Mahapatra, V.C. Bharathi, Karan Chahar, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner
  • S/Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Ms. Shubhangi Gupta, Mrs. Sonia Dhamija, Ranjeet Mishra, Tanishq Sharma, Sumit Gaur, Advocates & Pulkit Srivastava, AOR, for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The matter concerned appeals against a CESTAT order holding that activities of packing, re-packing, labeling, and re-labeling of parts of earthmoving machines, such as hydraulic loaders (wheel loading shovels), hydraulic excavator loaders (backhoe loaders), and road rollers (compactors), did not amount to manufacture. The issue was whether such activities constituted manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) read with Sl. No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The CESTAT, after following the decision of the Larger Bench in Action Construction Equipment Ltd. [2023 (11) Centax 17 (Tri. – L.B.)], had held that these activities did not amount to manufacture. Appeals were filed against the CESTAT order. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no good reason to interfere with the impugned CESTAT order and that the appeals filed thereagainst were to be dismissed after condoning the delay. The Court observed that the CESTAT had correctly followed the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd. [2023 (11) Centax 17 (Tri. – L.B.)]. The Court noted that activities of packing, re-packing, labeling, and re-labeling of parts of earthmoving machines did not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) read with Sl. No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • JCB India Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 34 Centax 381 (Tri. – Chan.) — Affirmed [Para 2]

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
HC Quashes SCN for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Consultation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025

SC Upholds Tax on Ink Used in Printing Lottery Tickets

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 15, 2025

Subscription and Entrance Fees from Members Not Liable to Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 13, 2025

Independent Appeal Against ROM Order Dismissed Only Final Tribunal Order Appealable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 9, 2025

SCN Without Pre-Consultation for ₹50 Lakh Demand Quashed | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 6, 2025

SC Rules Export Cargo Handling by AAI Attracts Service Tax

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 29, 2025

Fitting Extra Components in Steel Container Is Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 27, 2025

HC Rules No Rebate of Duty Allowed Without ARE-1 for Exports

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 23, 2025

SC Dismisses Appeal, Upholds HC Order Limiting Cenvat Credit Use

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025