JCB India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court, in JCB India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2014, considered an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai order dated 08.11.2013 in Appeal No. E/173/11. The assessee pointed out that the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal had subsequently doubted the Mumbai Bench decision and, by order dated 01.08.2016 in Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793 of 2012, had directed that specified issues be placed before a larger Bench. The Supreme Court noted the conflict between the Bombay and Chandigarh Benches and that the issues involved in the assessee’s appeals were already before the larger Bench process. It therefore considered it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for being heard along with Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793/2012 and Appeal Nos. E/1161/2011 and E/2968/2011. The Court set aside the impugned Mumbai Bench order without entering into the merits or expressing anything in favour of either party, directed the President of the Tribunal to constitute the larger Bench within four weeks from receipt of the order, and directed the issues to be finally decided preferably within six months from constitution of the larger Bench. The appeal was disposed of with no costs and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Related TaxGuru material: TaxGuru has also published material concerning JCB India Ltd. Vs Union of India in the context of CENVAT credit and GST transitional provisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short “the Mumbai Bench Tribunal”) in Appeal No. E/173/11, the assessee – JCB India Limited has preferred the present Appeal.
2. Shri Arvind Datar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee-appellant has pointed out that, subsequently the decision of the Mumbai Bench Tribunal impugned in the present Appeal fell for consideration by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short “the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal) in Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793 of 2012 and the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal has doubted the decision of the Mumbai Bench Tribunal, which is the subject-matter of the present Appeal and, by a detailed order dated 01.08.2016, has directed to list the said Appeals before the President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger Bench to consider the following issues:
“(i) How to define expression automobiles when it is not defined in Central Excise Act/Rules or any Notification issued thereunder. Can the expression given in the Acts, namely, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be adopted or the meaning of the expression automobiles can be assigned from the uniformly defined in the various dictionaries and known in common parlance? And
(ii) The Notification No.11/2011 dated 24.03.2011 giving the effect of demand of duty w.e.f. 29.04.2010 on the parts, components and assemblies of goods falling under Tariff Item No. 8426 41 00, headings 8417, 8429 and sub heading 8430 10 is clarificatory and applicable prior to 29.04.2010 mandatory and applicable from 29.04.2010 onwards.” It is pointed out that, because of the pendency of the present Appeal, Appeal Nos. E/791-793 of 2012 are lying with the President and the larger Bench has not been constituted by the President of the Tribunal. It is pointed out that subsequently another Appeals being Appeal Nos. E/1161/2011 and E/2918/2011 are also ordered to be tagged along with Appeal Nos. E-791-793/2012.
3. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG is not in a position to dispute the above and, as such, not disputing the above.
4. Considering the fact that there is a conflict between the two Benches of the Tribunal, namely, Bombay Bench and the Chandigarh Bench and subsequently the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has referred the matter and the issues, which are also the issues involved in the present Appeals, to the larger Bench and therefore, the issues involved in the case of the very assessee, namely, JCB India Limited are at large to be considered and decided by the larger Bench of the Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the present Appeals along with Excise Nos. E/791-793/2012 and the issues be resolved, decided and disposed of by the larger Bench of the Tribunal, as ordered by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal in the order dated 01.08.2016.
5. In view of the above, without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Mumbai Bench Tribunal. We remand the matter/Appeal to the Tribunal to be heard along with Excise Appeal Nos. E/791-793/2012 and Appeal Nos. E/1161/2011 and E/2968/2011 and to be heard by the larger Bench to be constituted by the President of the Tribunal, as per the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal dated 01.08.2016 and the issues which are referred to the larger Bench.
6. We direct the President of the Tribunal to constitute the larger Bench within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order and thereafter to finally decide and dispose of the issues referred to the larger Bench, referred to hereinabove, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of 6 months from the date of constitution of the larger Bench.
The present Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
The present Appeal stands disposed of above terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
