Site-erected, permanently fixed structure is not excisable goods; separately fabricated panel boards remained dutiable despite limitation objections.

Under central excise law, only movable articles that answer the description of goods are taxable, so a totalizator system assembled at site, permanently fixed to earth, and supported by civil work was not excisable and the demand on it was set aside. Separately fabricated panel boards were treated as excisable goods; the limitation defence failed because their manufacture had not come to the Department's knowledge and suppression was found, while the plea that duty could not arise until removal was rejected in light of the retrospective amendment to Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Classification of the panel boards was left for determination by the Collector.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the totalizator system erected at site and permanently fixed to earth was "goods" liable to excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) whether duty could be demanded in respect of the fabricated panel boards, including the question of limitation and removal.

Issue (i): whether the totalizator system erected at site and permanently fixed to earth was "goods" liable to excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Excise duty under Section 3 is attracted only to excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. The system, as found on the record, was assembled and erected at the premises with substantial civil work and was permanently fixed to earth. An article that is not movable and cannot ordinarily come to the market as a movable commercial commodity does not answer the description of "goods". The system was described as constructed or erected, not manufactured as a movable article, and the civil work was integral to its existence and functioning.

Conclusion: The totalizator system was not goods and no excise duty was leviable on it; the demand on the system was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether duty could be demanded in respect of the fabricated panel boards, including the question of limitation and removal.

Analysis: The appellants admitted fabrication of the panel boards for erection of the system and did not dispute that they were excisable. The objections based on limitation and alleged defects in the notice did not avail them, because the manufacture of the panel boards was not within the Department's knowledge and amounted to suppression of facts. The plea that duty could not arise because the goods had not been removed from the place of manufacture was rejected in view of the retrospective amendment to Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the proper tariff classification had not been argued, that question was left for determination by the Collector.

Conclusion: Duty was confined to the panel boards, and the related plea of time bar failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that duty on the assembled totalizator system was annulled, while liability was sustained for the panel boards with consequential reworking of classification and duty.

Ratio Decidendi: For central excise, only movable articles that answer the description of goods can be taxed, and a site-erected structure permanently fixed to earth is not goods; separately fabricated excisable components may still be dutiable where their manufacture is suppressed from departmental knowledge.

---