Movability test for excise: site-erected electro-static precipitators embedded on foundations were treated as immovable property, not excisable goods.

Electro-static precipitators fabricated and erected at site were held to be immovable property because they were embedded on concrete foundations as part of a plant and could not be dismantled and moved without substantial damage. Applying the settled principle that excisable goods must be movable, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court authorities and the CBEC circular on site-erected turnkey projects. As a result, the precipitators themselves were not liable to central excise duty, though the components used in the project could still be dutiable.

---

---

Issues: Whether electro-static precipitators fabricated and erected at site were excisable goods liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The precipitators were embedded on concrete foundations and formed part of a plant erected at site. The decisive consideration was whether the structure could be dismantled and moved without substantial damage to its components. Applying the governing principle that goods must be movable and that equipment erected on foundation and incapable of being dismantled and reassembled without damage is not excisable, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decisions cited before it and the CBEC circular clarifying that such site-erected turnkey projects are not to be treated as excisable goods, though their components may be dutiable.

Conclusion: The electro-static precipitators were not goods liable to excise duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A plant or equipment erected and embedded at site on a foundation, which cannot be dismantled and moved without substantial damage, is immovable property and does not constitute excisable goods.

---