Immovable property test for site-specific machinery: bucket wheel reclaimer not excisable, so duty, interest and penalties failed.

A bucket wheel reclaimer designed and fabricated for a specific port project, assembled and commissioned at site, and capable of movement only on a fixed rail track laid exclusively for it was treated as immovable property. Because it could not be transported as a single unit for deployment elsewhere and the department failed to establish marketability as manufactured goods, it did not satisfy the test of excisable goods. The demand for duty therefore failed, and the associated interest and penalties also had no foundation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a bucket wheel reclaimer assembled and erected at site for a specific port project was excisable goods or an immovable property, and whether duty, interest and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The equipment was designed and fabricated for a particular site, assembled and commissioned at the port premises, and could move only within a fixed rail track laid exclusively for it. Its use was confined to that location, it could not be transported as a single unit for deployment elsewhere, and the components used in assembly had already suffered duty. On these facts, the essential attribute of movability was absent and the department did not establish marketability as a manufactured good. Since the machine was a site-specific installation forming an immovable structure, it did not answer the description of excisable goods. Once duty demand failed, the penalty and interest consequences based on the same demand also had no foundation.

Conclusion: The bucket wheel reclaimer was held to be immovable property and not excisable, and the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.

---