Case Details: J.C.B. India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad (2025) 34 Centax 381 (Tri.-Chan)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S.S. Garg, Member (J) & P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
- Ms Priyanka Rathi & Shri Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Advocates, for the Appellant.
- Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant-assessee, engaged in packing/re-packing and labelling/re-labelling of parts of earthmoving machines such as hydraulic loaders, hydraulic excavator loaders, and road rollers, was subjected to proceedings on the premise that these activities amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) read with Sl. No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that earthmoving machinery could not be regarded as automobiles and relied upon the Larger Bench ruling in Action Construction Equipment Ltd. [2023 (11) Centax 17 (Tri. – L.B.)] wherein it was held that earthmoving machines were outside the scope of the said entry and that repacking or relabeling of their parts could not constitute manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii). The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that, following the Larger Bench decision in Action Construction Equipment Ltd., the statutory expression ‘automobiles’ in Sl. No. 100 of the Third Schedule could not be extended to earthmoving machinery, and consequently, their parts could not fall within the ambit of manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii). The Tribunal observed that the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required strict interpretation of entries in the Third Schedule and that activities limited to packing/re-packing and labelling/re-labelling of earthmoving machine parts lacked the essential attributes of manufacture as defined therein. The appeals were accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Action Construction Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (11) Centax 17 (Tri. – LB.) — Followed [Paras 2, 4]
- Donaldson India Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2024-VIL-763-CESTAT-CHED-CE — Relied on [Paras 2, 5]
