Site-fabricated fired heater not proved movable or marketable, so central excise duty demand failed.

A fired heater fabricated entirely at site on civil foundations, using site-assembled structural materials, coils, ducts, burners and refractory lining, was treated as a structure fixed to the ground. The demand for central excise duty failed because no evidence established that the heater was movable or marketable goods; its site-specific erection was inconsistent with excisable goods. A precedent on a crane cleared in knocked-down condition was held inapplicable on materially different facts, so the duty demand was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fired heater fabricated and erected at site constituted movable and marketable goods liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The claimed facts showed that the heater was fabricated entirely at site on civil foundations, using site-assembled structural materials, coils, ducts, burners, refractory lining, and related components, resulting in a structure fixed to the ground. The demand was sustained below on the assumption that the heater was an independent movable equipment, but no evidence was produced to establish movability or marketability. A precedent concerning a crane cleared in knocked down condition was found inapplicable because the factual setting was materially different.

Conclusion: The fired heater was not shown to be movable or marketable goods and could not be subjected to excise duty; the demand was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---