TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the erected Horton Spheres, assembled and welded at site from duty-paid components, amounted to manufacture of excisable goods liable to central excise duty and classification under Heading 8485.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Analysis: The components of the Horton Spheres were manufactured in the factory and cleared on payment of duty. At the site, the components were only assembled, installed, welded and embedded on foundations and steel legs to form a permanent structure. Applying the test of permanence and attachment to earth, the erected spheres ceased to be movable goods and became part of immovable property. They were not distinct identifiable goods brought into existence by the site activity and, in any event, could not be treated as machinery parts or equipment falling under the tariff heading invoked by the department.
Conclusion: The site erection did not amount to manufacture of excisable goods and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the adjudication holding the appellants liable to central excise duty and penalty was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere assembly, welding and erection of duty-paid components into a permanently embedded structure at site does not constitute manufacture of excisable goods when no distinct movable commodity emerges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
