2015 (1) TMI 1318 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - fabrication and installation of doors and windows at site - demand of duty - whether the process amounts to manufacture satisfying the twin test of mobility and marketability? - Held that - aluminium doors and windows are not goods. In the manner in which they have been fixed to the civil structural at the site they get embedded to the structure and cannot be removed without damage to the glasses. The process does not amount to manufacture and does not satisfy the test of marketability and movability - demand set aside - appeal rejected - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal holding respondent not liable to pay duty on manufactured goods - Whether aluminium doors and windows qualify as goods for excisability - Applicability of judgments on similar items - Marketability and movability test for excisability.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the same Order-in-Appeal, where the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the respondent was not liable to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them. The respondent provided aluminium doors and windows for a building site, procuring aluminium sections, sending them for powder coating, fabrication, and installation. The Revenue contended that these activities constituted manufacture of goods attracting duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Sirpur Paper Mills v. CCE, stating that if a product fixed to the earth can be dismantled without substantial damage, it qualifies as goods. The Revenue appealed, arguing that doors and windows met the twin test of mobility and marketability for excisability.

The learned AR cited a Tribunal decision holding that pre-erection fabrication of aluminium sections amounts to manufacture. In contrast, the respondent's Counsel relied on other Tribunal decisions stating that doors and windows become goods only after being fixed to structurals. The Tribunal noted the vague grounds of appeal focusing on the manufacturer and emphasized that duty was demanded on doors and windows, not on aluminium frames. They found the case law cited by the AR not directly applicable, while the judgments relied upon by the respondent were more relevant.

Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal analyzed the process involved in manufacturing windows, emphasizing that windows become goods only after being permanently fixed. They concluded that in this case, aluminium doors and windows were not goods as they were embedded in the structure and could not be removed without damage to the glasses. The process did not amount to manufacture, failing the marketability and movability test for excisability. Consequently, the duty demand was deemed unsustainable, and the appeals were rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the nature of the manufacturing process, the applicability of relevant case law, and the crucial distinction between parts of windows and fully assembled windows in determining excisability. The judgment clarified that the fixation of doors and windows to civil structures rendered them immovable and non-excisable, highlighting the importance of marketability and movability in excise duty determinations.