Immovable coal handling plant not manufacture, so central excise duty on erection could not be sustained.

Erection of a coal handling plant was treated as installation of immovable property, not manufacture of excisable goods, because the plant comprised large civil structures, machinery and conveyor systems fixed to the earth over a vast area. As it was not a marketable commodity capable of being bought and sold, central excise duty was not sustainable on the plant's erection.

---

---

Issues: Whether erection of the coal handling plant amounted to manufacture of excisable goods and whether the plant was liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The plant was found to consist of large civil structures and extensive machinery and conveyor systems spread over a vast area and attached to the earth. Following the earlier decision in the same matter, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, such a plant was treated as immovable property and not as a marketable commodity capable of being brought and sold in the market.

Conclusion: Erection of the coal handling plant did not amount to manufacture, and the demand of central excise duty could not be sustained.

---