Site-assembled plant treated as immovable; brand-name exemption preserved, with only limited short levy and reduced penalties surviving.

A site-assembled plant embedded in civil foundations, interconnected by pipes, belts and underground cabling, was treated as immovable and not excisable goods, so duty on that basis was set aside. Products bearing the manufacturers' own brand labels, with the marketing concern's name shown only as a less prominent market identifier, did not attract denial of exemption on brand-name grounds, so the related demands failed. Only a limited admitted short levy survived against two units, with penalties reduced to token amounts, partner penalties remitted, interest confined to the remaining demand, and confiscation of land, building and plant set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plant assembled and erected at the buyer's site by the trading concern constituted excisable goods and amounted to manufacture; (ii) whether the manufacturing units were disentitled to exemption because the products bore the brand name of the marketing concern; and (iii) what consequential relief followed in respect of the limited admitted short levy, penalties and confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether the plant assembled and erected at the buyer's site by the trading concern constituted excisable goods and amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The site activity resulted in a large plant made up of substantial components embedded in civil foundations, interconnected by pipes, belts and underground cabling, and incapable of being dismantled and re-erected elsewhere without fresh civil work. On these facts, the assembled plant was not treated as movable goods. The confirmation of duty on the footing that the site-erected plant was excisable therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The site-assembled plant was not goods, and the duty confirmed on that basis was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the manufacturing units were disentitled to exemption because the products bore the brand name of the marketing concern.

Analysis: The products of the manufacturing units carried their own prominently displayed brand labels, while the marketing concern's name appeared only as a less prominent market identification on the inside of the machinery and was used in the context of marketing and supply arrangements. The comparative prominence of the labels and the nature of the trade arrangement did not establish such use of another's brand name as to deny the exemption. The reasoning adopted in the applicable precedent on comparative prominence of brand labels supported grant of the benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption was not denied on the ground of brand-name use, and the related demands could not survive.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief followed in respect of the limited admitted short levy, penalties and confiscation.

Analysis: After the principal duty demands failed, only a small admitted short levy survived against two units. Penalties were therefore required to be scaled down to token amounts, and penalties on the partners were not warranted. Since the bulk of the demand failed, confiscation of land, building and plant also could not be sustained. Interest survived only to the extent of the remaining demand.

Conclusion: The small surviving duty demand was upheld against the two units, penalties were reduced, partner penalties were remitted, and confiscation was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessees obtained substantial relief: the principal duty demand based on site erection and brand-name denial was rejected, with only a limited short levy sustained against two units and corresponding penalties and interest confined to that surviving amount.

---