Excisability of industrial furnaces turns on whether fabrication and erection created movable goods or immovable property, with limitation also aiding relief.

The commentary examines whether industrial furnaces assembled through fabrication, supply, erection and commissioning are excisable goods or immovable property, noting that invoice descriptions alone do not establish manufacture and supply before erection. It also highlights that removability without destruction is relevant to the immovable property analysis, and that a prior order treating similar furnaces as non-dutiable supported a prima facie limitation plea where no later notice informed the applicants that duty would still be demanded. The discussion concludes that these facts can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in an appropriate case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty on the ground that the industrial furnaces were immovable property and not exigible to duty. (ii) Whether the applicants had a prima facie case on limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty on the ground that the industrial furnaces were immovable property and not exigible to duty.

Analysis: The notices did not establish that the furnaces were fabricated or manufactured and supplied prior to erection. The description in the invoices, referring to fabrication, supply, erection and commissioning, did not by itself show that the furnaces came into existence elsewhere and were later installed. The challenge that the furnaces could not be removed without destruction was also not dealt with in the impugned order, which relied on a fact-specific precedent without showing its applicability to the present facts.

Conclusion: A strong prima facie case was made out on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants had a prima facie case on limitation.

Analysis: An earlier order had held that similar industrial furnaces were immovable property not liable to duty. No material was shown to indicate that the applicants were subsequently informed that the furnaces would still be dutiable despite that order. On that basis, the applicants could reasonably have believed that the furnaces were not dutiable.

Conclusion: A strong prima facie case was made out on limitation.

Final Conclusion: Deposit of the demanded duty and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed.

---