https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91204 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. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91204 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91204