2005 (2) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether Portable Pilot Plant is movable and liable to excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal where it was held that Portable pilot plants fabricated in the factory are excisable goods. The contention of the appellants was that the plant in question, used for exfoliation of perlite, was a huge plant that could not be moved without dismantling. They relied on the fact that the plant had been sent to another site and argued that it was not movable property. The Revenue argued that since the plant was dismantled for transportation purposes, it was movable property.

The main issue revolved around whether the Portable Pilot Plant was movable and thus liable to excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the plant could be dismantled and transported to any place for reassembly, as evidenced by its relocation to another site. Referring to the Supreme Court case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, it was highlighted that goods demanded duty must be marketable as such. The Tribunal noted that if a chattel could be moved to another place of use in the same position or dismantled and re-erected elsewhere, it should be considered movable. The Tribunal concluded that since the plant in question could be removed from the site after dismantling, it met the criteria of being movable. The Tribunal also emphasized the Board's Circular stating that goods incapable of being shifted and marketed without dismantling into components are not excisable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the judgment focused on the mobility of the Portable Pilot Plant and its liability to excise duty. By applying legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal determined that the plant, capable of being dismantled and relocated, was indeed movable property and not subject to excise duty.