Excisability and removal of fabricated goods must be proved before central excise duty can be sustained.

A fabricated M.S. vessel/tank was held not to have reached the stage of complete, ready-for-use excisable goods because the department did not prove that it was complete, usable, or removed. Since liability to central excise duty cannot arise merely from fabrication at site, and the record showed no clearing, use, or intended manufacturing deployment before seizure, duty demand could not be sustained. On those facts, the question of who was the manufacturer and the applicability of Notification No. 67/95 did not require examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fabricated M.S. vessel/tank had reached the stage of excisable goods and, if so, whether duty could be demanded in the absence of removal.

Analysis: The fabricated vessel was found to be incomplete and not established to be a complete, ready-for-use excisable commodity. The department did not discharge the burden of proving excisability or removal, and the record showed that the vessel had not been used, cleared, or put to the intended manufacturing use before seizure. In these circumstances, liability to duty could not arise merely on fabrication at site, and it was unnecessary to examine who was the manufacturer or whether exemption under Notification No. 67/95 applied.

Conclusion: The vessel was not shown to have reached the excisable stage and no duty liability arose in the absence of removal; the appeal of the department failed and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department fails to prove that a fabricated item has become complete excisable goods and that it has been removed, central excise duty cannot be sustained.

---