https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102048 Excise duty on storage tanks depended on whether they were movable and marketable goods; the record was insufficient to finally decide movability, so that issue was remanded for fresh factual examination. Classification under Heading 84.19 was rejected because a component placed in a plant does not become plant merely by installation, and the tanks were held classifiable under Heading 73.09. Non-disclosure of the fabrication activity justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were set aside because Section 11AC was not in force for the relevant period. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:31:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102048 Excise duty on storage tanks depended on whether they were movable and marketable goods; the record was insufficient to finally decide movability, so that issue was remanded for fresh factual examination. Classification under Heading 84.19 was rejected because a component placed in a plant does not become plant merely by installation, and the tanks were held classifiable under Heading 73.09. Non-disclosure of the fabrication activity justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. Penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were set aside because Section 11AC was not in force for the relevant period. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102048