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 stainless steel tanks fabricated and erected at site, and embedded to the earth, amounted to excisable goods classifiable under Heading 73.09, and whether Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules could be applied to such site-erected tanks.
Analysis: The order records that the tanks came into existence as immovable property at the site after fabrication and erection piece by piece. On that factual footing, Rule 2(a) was held inapplicable, because the provision addresses incomplete, unfinished, unassembled, or disassembled goods that retain the essential character of the finished article. The decision also noted that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner was inconsistent with the Central Board's Circular No. 17/89, which distinguishes between tanks fabricated first and then positioned, and tanks that come into existence only by fixing the parts at site. Reliance was also placed on prior Tribunal authority treating embedded and erected tanks as non-excisable.
Conclusion: The site-erected stainless steel tanks were not excisable goods and could not be classified for duty under Heading 73.09.
Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods that come into existence only as immovable property by site-based erection and embedding are not excisable, and the interpretative rule for incomplete or unassembled goods does not apply to such property.