1997 (12) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 90% of the parts required for the machine. In respect of the parts fabricated inside the factory of the appellant, no duty was, leviable under Notification No. 118/75, dated April 30, 1975 issued by the Government. The case of the appellant is that the Excise authority erroneously imposed duty on the paper making machine installed in the factory of the appellant because the Central Excise Act imposes a duty on "all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India". It is well-settled that the "goods" contemplated by Section 3 which is the charging section of the Act must be movable and marketable. The case of the appellant is that the various components of the paper making machine purchased by the appellant had to be put together at the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bled and erected by the appellant at its factory site was immovable property as something attached to earth like a building or a tree. The Tribunal has pointed out that it was for the operational efficiency of the machine that it was attached to earth. If the appellant wanted to sell the paper making machine it could always remove it from its base and sell it. 5.Apart from this finding of fact made by the Tribunal, the point advanced on behalf of the appellant, that whatever is embedded in earth must be treated as immovable property is basically not sound. For example, a factory owner or a house-holder may purchase a water pump and fix it on a cement base for operational efficiency and also for security. That will not make the water pump a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... omething distinct and apart from the components that have gone into its production. What the appellant has erected in its factory is a paper making machine. It may have purchased various components to make the machine but nonetheless what has been produced is something quite different from the components that had been purchased. A new marketable commodity has emerged as a result of the manufacturing activity of the appellant. 8.Marketability being a question of fact, we are of the view there is no scope for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has overlooked any material fact or its decision is perverse. 9.The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Case laws, Decisions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X