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Your email address will not be published.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
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026