Refund on installed silo duty rejected where excisability was tested at removal, not after later erection.

Refund of duty on a silo was held inadmissible because the duty liability had to be tested by reference to the goods as purchased and removed from the supplier, not by their later condition after installation at the assessee's premises. The silo was movable when duty was paid, and its subsequent erection into an immovable structure did not alter the original excisability or make the payment unwarranted. On that basis, the claim for refund failed and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on a silo purchased and installed in the assessee's premises was admissible on the ground that the erected silo became immovable property and ceased to be excisable goods.

Analysis: The item was purchased from the supplier and moved to the assessee's premises on payment of duty. The character of the goods for refund purposes had to be determined with reference to the item as purchased and removed, not to what happened after installation in the assessee's premises. Since the goods were movable at the time duty was paid, the subsequent erection did not alter the duty liability or render the original payment unwarranted.

Conclusion: The refund was not admissible; duty had been rightly paid on the goods purchased, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---