Site-assembled structural glazing is non-excisable when it cannot be dismantled without damage; suppression was not established.

Site-assembled unitized structural glazing and aluminium windows were treated as non-excisable because the decisive test of removability was not met: once erected at the project site, the structures could not be dismantled and reassembled without substantial damage. The analysis also noted that the issue had already attained finality in the assessee's own earlier proceedings. On limitation, the extended period was found unavailable because the assessee had disclosed its position, filed returns, and corresponded with the department, leaving no basis to infer suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the site-assembled unitized structural glazing and aluminium windows erected at the project site amounted to manufacture of excisable goods. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the site-assembled unitized structural glazing and aluminium windows erected at the project site amounted to manufacture of excisable goods.

Analysis: The activity was examined in the light of the board circular on marketability and removability of goods erected at site. The decisive test applied was whether the erected structure could be dismantled and moved as such without substantial damage to the components. The record showed that the structures, once erected, were attached to the site and could not be removed or reassembled without damage, and the issue had already been decided in the assessee's own case in earlier proceedings. Following that finality and judicial propriety, the same legal view was applied.

Conclusion: The activity did not result in excisable manufacture of movable goods, and the demand failed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The assessee had intimated its protest to the department and had been filing returns and engaging in continued correspondence on the duty liability. The matter was interpretational and had remained under litigation. On those facts, there was no reliable basis to infer deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was not available to the department.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalties were set aside, and the assessee obtained relief on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods erected at site are not excisable if they cannot be dismantled and moved without substantial damage, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---