Site-fabricated structurals embedded in a factory are non-excisable and may qualify for site-based exemption.

Structurals fabricated at site and used solely in a cement plant were held entitled to the site-based exemption, as the record did not show removal for use elsewhere and the finding of removability rested only on presumption. Structurals erected piece by piece and permanently embedded in the factory premises were also treated as non-excisable, because once dismantled they would lose alignment and engineering precision and would yield only scrap. Goods forming part of immovable property and lacking marketability do not satisfy the test of excisable goods, so the duty demand was unsustainable and the exemption could not be denied on mere conjecture.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the structurals fabricated at site and used in the cement plant were exempt under the relevant exemption notification; (ii) whether the structurals, being erected piece by piece and permanently embedded in the factory premises, were excisable goods at all.

Issue (i): whether the structurals fabricated at site and used in the cement plant were exempt under the relevant exemption notification.

Analysis: The Board circular clarified that the expression relating to construction site should receive a broad meaning for goods manufactured at the site and used solely in the construction work, and that the benefit would apply mutatis mutandis to the relevant structural heading. The record did not establish any removal of the structurals from the factory for use elsewhere, and the finding that they could be shifted was based only on presumption rather than evidence.

Conclusion: The structurals falling under the relevant tariff heading were entitled to exemption and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the structurals, being erected piece by piece and permanently embedded in the factory premises, were excisable goods at all.

Analysis: The structurals were assembled at site and, if dismantled, would only result in waste or scrap, with loss of alignment and engineering precision. Goods so embedded in the earth and forming part of an immovable property do not satisfy the requirement of marketability and cannot be treated as excisable goods. The reasoning was supported by the principle affirmed in the cited Supreme Court decision on non-excisability of such articles.

Conclusion: The structurals were not excisable goods because they were immovable and not marketable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside, leaving the assessee successful on both the exemption and excisability questions.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods fabricated and erected at site which are permanently embedded in the earth and not marketable as movable goods are not excisable, and a site-based exemption cannot be denied on mere presumptions of removability without evidence.

---