Marketability and manufacture in site-fabricated goods determine excise liability and manufacturer status under central excise law.

Steel tanks fabricated and welded at site were treated as immovable property, because they came into existence at the site and were not shown to be separately manufactured as movable goods capable of sale; they were therefore not excisable. Steel pipes fabricated before laying in trenches were treated differently: the later on-site welding was only for convenience, so the pipes satisfied marketability and were regarded as excisable goods. On manufacture, mere supply of raw material, drawings, or supervision did not make the appellants the manufacturer where the work was actually carried out by a job worker. The duty demand and consequential penalty could not be sustained against the appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the steel tanks fabricated at site were excisable goods liable to central excise duty; (ii) Whether the steel pipes fabricated and laid at site were excisable goods liable to central excise duty; (iii) Whether the appellants could be treated as the manufacturer of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the steel tanks fabricated at site were excisable goods liable to central excise duty

Analysis: The tanks were found to have come into existence at the site by stage-by-stage fabrication and welding, and the record did not show that they were first manufactured as separate goods and then attached to the earth. Applying the settled test of marketability and the distinction between movable and immovable property, the tanks were held not to be capable of being moved and sold as such.

Conclusion: The tanks were not excisable goods and were not liable to excise duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the steel pipes fabricated and laid at site were excisable goods liable to central excise duty

Analysis: The fabrication process showed that the pipes came into existence before they were laid in trenches, and the later welding at site was only a matter of convenience. On that basis, the pipes satisfied the marketability requirement and were not treated as immovable property.

Conclusion: The steel pipes were excisable goods and were liable to excise duty.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants could be treated as the manufacturer of the goods

Analysis: The work contract and surrounding material showed that the actual fabrication was carried out by the job worker, who supplied labour and undertook the manufacturing activity. Mere supply of raw material, drawings, or supervision did not make the appellants the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The appellants were not the manufacturer of the pipes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the tanks were not dutiable and the appellants were not the manufacturer of the pipes, so the duty demand and consequential penalty could not be sustained against them.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise liability, an article must be a marketable product capable of being bought and sold as such; goods fabricated at site that emerge as immovable property are not excisable, and the actual job worker who undertakes the manufacturing activity is the manufacturer.

---