Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 430 - AT - Central ExciseChargeablity to central excise duty - Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe (WTLB) and Vibrating Compactor (VC) - Denial under sub-heading no. 84295900 and 84305090 for the period June, 2006 to June, 2011 - Held that:- WTLB and VC are classifiable under Headings 8429 and 8430 respectively and parts and components of these machinery would be covered under Heading No. 8431. However, during the period till 28-4-2010, Sl. No. 100 of the 3rd Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 covered “parts, components and assemblies of Automobiles”. Thus so far as the period prior to 29-4-2010 is concerned, the Department’s stand in the impugned order is not correct. It is settled law that the words, in a statute are to be understood in their context and a statute must be read as a whole, and extension of this rules of context permits reference to other statute in pari materia i.e. statute dealing with the same subject matter or forming the part of the same system. As decided in MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1984 (10) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) it is hazardous to interpret a word in a statute, in accordance with its definition in another statute or statutory instrument and more so when such statute or statutory instrument is not dealing with the cognate subject. Thus meaning of the term “Automobile” in Entry No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 should therefore, be understood on the basis of how the term “Automobile” is understood in the cognate statute of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and its schedule. The definition of “Automobile” in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which deal with altogether different subjects, cannot be adopted for construing this term in Central Excise Act, 1944. When in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, WTLB and VC are understood as construction machinery falling under Chapter 84 and not as “Automobile” of Chapter 87, it would be totally wrong to apply definition of the term “Automobile” in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which are for altogether different purposes, and hold that this term covers WTLB and VC also. More so, when the Board’s Circular No. 167/38/2008-CX., dated 16-12-2008 also supports the appellant’s stand. As regards the period w.e.f. 29-4-2010, prima facie, the goods in question are covered by S. No. 100A of the 3rd Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and have packing/re-packing of parts of WTLB and VC would attract excise duty. But for this period, it is not disputed that the appellant have paid the duty of Rs. 1,79,75,486/-. Besides this, it is also not denied that they have paid an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs during investigation, besides furnishing the guarantee of Rs. 1,15,84,774/-. Therefore, the amount already deposited by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of these appeals. The requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty is, therefore, waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the Appeal.
|