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 the chiller plant assembled and commissioned at the customer's site was immovable property and therefore not excisable goods liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The plant was assembled from duty-paid components as part of a refrigeration system and was grouted to a concrete foundation at site. The fact that individual components could be detached by unfastening nuts and bolts did not make the plant as a whole movable. A refrigeration or air-conditioning system comes into existence only by assembly and connection of its parts and cannot be treated as excisable goods merely because its components are dutiable. The cited Board circular and the Supreme Court decision on erection of plant on a specially constructed base supported the view that such a site-erected system, considered as a whole, is not goods.
Conclusion: The chiller plant was not excisable goods and no duty was leviable; the demand, penalties and consequential reliefs were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A plant or system erected at site on a permanent foundation, which is movable only in its disassembled components and not as a whole, is immovable property and does not constitute excisable goods.