Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether diesel generating sets assembled, installed and commissioned at site became excisable goods or remained immovable property.
Analysis: The decisive facts were that the engine, alternator and allied equipment were assembled at the customer's site on a concrete foundation, permanently grouted and rooted, and thereafter interconnected with auxiliary systems to form a complete power-generating installation. On the majority view, the process was one of erection and installation of an integrated plant rather than manufacture of movable goods. The installation could not be treated as a marketable commodity capable of being removed as such without dismantling. The governing principle drawn from the Supreme Court authorities was that excisability requires a manufactured product answering the test of movability and marketability.
Conclusion: The diesel generating sets were not excisable goods but an immovable property, and duty demand on that basis could not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: An item assembled and permanently installed at site is not excisable unless it emerges as movable and marketable goods; mere fixation on a concrete base for functional stability does not by itself make it immovable, but a site-erected system that cannot be taken to market as such is not manufacture of excisable goods.