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 belt conveyor system erected at the customer's site was excisable goods liable to central excise duty, and whether the duty demand and penalties could survive.
Analysis: The conveyor system came into existence through site-specific civil foundations, permanent welding, and erection of components step by step over a large area. It was fixed to the earth with an element of permanency, could not be dismantled without substantial damage, and was not shown to be capable of being taken to the market and sold. The governing test for excisability required not only a tariff entry but also manufacture of movable, marketable goods. On the facts, the system was in the nature of an immovable structure and did not satisfy the marketability requirement. Once the goods were held non-excisable, the basis for duty, limitation controversy, and penalties fell away.
Conclusion: The belt conveyor system was not excisable goods. The duty demand was unsustainable and the penalties imposed on the assessee were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A site-erected structure fixed to the earth with permanency, which cannot be dismantled and marketed as such, is not excisable goods notwithstanding its coverage by a tariff entry.