https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50869 Steel towers assembled piece by piece on RCC foundations at site were treated as embedded to the earth and therefore lacked the marketability required for excisable goods; excise duty could not be sustained on those 10 site-erected towers. The two towers admittedly fabricated in the workshop at Delhi remained dutiable, but eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The key distinction was between site assembly resulting in immovable, non-marketable structures and workshop manufacture of movable goods subject to central excise. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50869 Steel towers assembled piece by piece on RCC foundations at site were treated as embedded to the earth and therefore lacked the marketability required for excisable goods; excise duty could not be sustained on those 10 site-erected towers. The two towers admittedly fabricated in the workshop at Delhi remained dutiable, but eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The key distinction was between site assembly resulting in immovable, non-marketable structures and workshop manufacture of movable goods subject to central excise. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50869