Immovable site-specific bridge structures not excisable goods where marketability and suppression for extended limitation are unproven.

Site-specific fabricated bridge-construction structures embedded in the earth were treated as immovable property, not excisable movable goods, because their permanency and attachment made them incapable of central excise levy. The department also failed to prove that the items were marketable commercial goods or that manufacture had resulted in excisable goods on the facts. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked without evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. As a result, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained and the adverse orders were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fabricated bridge-construction items were excisable goods or immovable property and therefore outside central excise levy; (ii) whether the department had established marketability and manufacture for the items in question; (iii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): Whether the fabricated bridge-construction items were excisable goods or immovable property and therefore outside central excise levy.

Analysis: The items were fabricated for a specific bridge project and were embedded in the earth or otherwise permanently attached in a manner that made them incapable of being treated as movable goods. The surrounding facts showed that the structures were intended to be used as part of the construction process and were dismantled only where the nature of the item permitted it, while the impugned goods themselves were created as site-specific structures. Applying the test of permanency and attachment to the earth, the Tribunal treated the products as immovable property and not as excisable movable goods.

Conclusion: The items were held to be immovable property and not excisable goods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the department had established marketability and manufacture for the items in question.

Analysis: The goods were custom-made for a particular contract and were not shown to be standard commercial articles capable of being bought and sold in the market. The department had not discharged the burden of proving marketability, and the character of the structures as site-specific fabrications also undermined the case that they had acquired the status of marketable goods merely because of fabrication from steel plates, angles and channels.

Conclusion: Marketability and excisability were not established against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The show cause notices did not satisfactorily explain suppression or establish any intention to evade duty. The Tribunal found no material showing concealment, and noted the factual circumstances as inconsistent with a valid invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not available to the department, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demands and penalty could not be sustained, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Site-specific structures that are permanently embedded in the earth and are not shown to be marketable are not excisable goods, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proof of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---