https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51379 An assembled plant is not excisable merely because it exists as a large installation; reliable technical evidence is required to show that it is movable and marketable as such. On the record, panchnama and photographs were insufficient to prove that the plant assemblies could be removed intact without destroying their identity, so the duty demand on that basis failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed that it was setting up a separate new industrial unit, and there was no sustainable proof of suppression or intent to evade. The demand was therefore time-barred and the penalties could not survive. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:58:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51379 An assembled plant is not excisable merely because it exists as a large installation; reliable technical evidence is required to show that it is movable and marketable as such. On the record, panchnama and photographs were insufficient to prove that the plant assemblies could be removed intact without destroying their identity, so the duty demand on that basis failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed that it was setting up a separate new industrial unit, and there was no sustainable proof of suppression or intent to evade. The demand was therefore time-barred and the penalties could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51379