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 conveyor system, erected in the factory by embedding the driver units, driven units, stands, channels, gear box and electric motors into the earth, was excisable goods liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The system was installed by first grouting the permanent units to the earth and then assembling the remaining components on the embedded supports. On these facts, the system acquired the character of immovable property from the outset and was not brought into existence as a movable article capable of being bought and sold in the market. The test of marketability was also not satisfied, because the conveyor system was designed for a specific factory location and had no commercial identity as marketable goods. As the appeal was being allowed on the threshold issue of excisability, it was unnecessary to decide limitation.
Conclusion: The conveyor system was not goods within section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and no excise duty was payable on it. The penalty was also unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A plant or system erected by permanently embedding it to earth, which does not emerge as a movable and marketable article, is not excisable goods liable to central excise duty.