Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2026) 40 Centax 264 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, V.C. Bharathi, Navanjay Mahapatra, Rahul Arya, Udit Dediya, Ms Seema Bengani, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv., Mohit Raval, Jas Sanghavi, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Prabhat Chaurasia, Anirudh Jamwal, Aditya Bajaj, Ms Kenisha Savla, Advs., For M/s MPS Legal, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was engaged in activities of packing or repacking and affixing logo and MRP on packages of parts and components of earthmoving equipment, such as hydraulic excavators, dozers, wheel loaders, motor graders, tippers and dumpers. The issue related to whether such activities amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The CESTAT held that such activities did not amount to manufacture during the period prior to 29-04-2010, when an amendment was made to the Third Schedule by the insertion of serial number 100A. The revenue filed appeals against the said order with a delay of 236 days. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay of 236 days in filing the appeals was not satisfactorily explained. It was further held that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CESTAT. The Court noted that the activities in question did not amount to manufacture during the relevant period prior to the amendment. It was held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Commissioner — (2026) 40 Centax 263 (Tri-Mumbai) — Affirmed [Para 2]
