Holding

A turbo alternator assembled on a concrete platform is a manufactured, marketable commodity but is immovable property and therefore not an excisable good under the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Summary

The appellants, Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and another, dealt in turbo alternators, which they assembled on customers' premises by fixing a steam turbine and a complete alternator on a concrete platform. The Revenue Department claimed that the assembled turbo alternators were liable to excise duty under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing that they were excisable goods manufactured in India. The appellants contended that the turbo alternator, being permanently fixed to the land, was immovable property and that no manufacturing process was involved. The Supreme Court held that the assembly of the turbine and alternator created a new marketable commodity with a distinctive name, constituting a manufacturing process, but that the resulting turbo alternator was immovable property and therefore not an "excisable good" under the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the CEGAT order and allowed the appeals, holding that excise duty could not be imposed on the turbo alternators.

Issues considered

The assembly of a steam turbine and alternator on a concrete platform constitutes a manufacturing process for excise duty purposes.
Whether a turbo alternator, once fixed to a concrete base, qualifies as an "excisable good" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Whether the turbo alternator is an immovable property, thereby failing the mobility and marketability tests required for excise liability.

Legislation cited

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944s. 2(d), s. 3
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 3(25)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 3

Subjects

excise dutymanufacturing processexcisable goodsimmovable propertyturbo alternatortariff classificationmarketabilitypermanency

Judgment

TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. A
v.
.... COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANR .

AUGUST 8, 2000

[SYED SHAH MOHMMED QUADRI AND SHIVARAJ V PATIL, JJ.] B

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 :

Section 3-Excise duty-Exigibility to-Twin condition-Turbo alterna-
tor-Held, to attract excise duty an article must satisfy the twin conditions of
being (i) excisable goods and (ii) produced or manufactured in India-Turbo c
alternator does notfu!fil the.first condition-Hence excise duty cannot be levied
on it-Central Excise Tar({{ Act, 1985-Heading 85.02.

Manufacturing process-Meaning of-Turbo alternator-Assessee pro-
duced turbo alternator by fixing a steam turbine on to an alternator perma-
nently placed on a pla(form at the customers premise:.~Held, when a market-
D
able commodity emerges with a distinctive name, character or use it amounts
to a manufacturing process-Hence, creation of turbo alternator is a manufac-
turing process.

Excisable goods-Determination of-Tests-Turbo alternator-Held, if
E
an article does not find a place ea nomine in the schedule to the Excise
Act it is liable to excise duty only when it is shown that it is Mobile and
marketable-Otherwise, it is an immovable property-Whether an article is
permanently fastened to the earth require determination of both intention as
well as factum of fastening to earth-Turbo alternator answers the test of
permanency-Hence, not liable to excise duty-Transfer of Property Act, 1882- F
S.3-General Clauses Act, 1897-S.3(25)-Harmonized System qf Nomencla-
ture-Explanatory Notes to Heading 85.02 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Words and Phrases :

"Excisable goods "-Meaning of-Jn the context qf S.2( d) of the Central G
Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

The appellants-assessees dealt in turbo alternator, which had two
components; (i) steam turbine; and (ii) complete alternator (also called
'Generator'). Of them, the appellants manufactured steam turbine in their
factories and excise duty was paid on them under the Central Excises and H
199
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Salt Act, 1944. The appellants purchased duty paid complete alternators,
which were delivered at the premises of the customer.

The respondent-Revenue confirmed the demand of excise duty on
the turbo alternators under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff
-
Act, 1985. The appeals filed by the appellants-assessees were dismissed by
B the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Hence this
appeal.

On behalf of the appellant-assessee it was contended that in combin-
ing steam turbine and alternator, no manufacturing process was involved;
that the process consisted of combining and fixing of the two components
c permanently on a platform raised at the premises of the customers and
thus what emerged was not goods but an immovable property.

Allowing t:te appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. To attract exigibility of excise duty, an article must
D satisfy the twin conditions of being (i) excisable goods; and (ii) produced or
manufactured in India. [204-D]

1.2. In order to bring into existence a turbo alternator, a platform, in
which pockets are provided, is constructed at the site. The steam turbine
from the assessees' factory and the alternator from other factories are
E
transported to the site. The steam turbine is placed on the platform, which
works as the foundation, and then, after levelling, it is fastened with
foundation bolts into the pocket. So also, the alternator is placed and
bolted to the steam turbine through a high speed coupling between the
steam turbine outer-shaft and alternator shaft and they are aligned
F properly. After ensuring that there is no movement of the alternator
pedestal, other accessories are installed at their respective places. Having
regard to this process, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal (CEGAT) rightly held that the assessees manufactured turbo
alternators. [204-E-FJ
G 2. Where an activity results in emergence of a new marketable
commodity with a distinctive name, character or use, it cannot but be a
manufacturing process. Therefore, the process involved in fixing steam
turbine and alternator and in coupling and aligning them in a specified
manner to form a turbo alternator, a new commodity, is nothing but a
H manufacturing process. [205-D-F]
TRIVENI ENG. AND INDUSTRIES LTD. v. C.C.E. 201
Name Tuleman Mam!facturers Pvt. ltd. v. CCE, (1989] 1 SCC 172 and A
· Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, (1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 586,
relied on.

State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ltd.,
(1977] 1 sec 643, referred to.
B
3.1. It is clear that goods, which are sought to be subjected to excise
duty, must find a place in the Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act,
1944 as laid down by the expression "excisable goods" in Section 2(d) of
the Act. (205-G]

3.2. A perusal of Entry 85.02 of the Schedule to the Act shows that a c
turbo alternator does not find a place therein eo nomine. To bring a 'turbo
alternator' under that Heading it must be shown to have the attributes of
'excisable goods' as understood in the Excise Law. They are mobility and
marketability. The article in question should be capable of being brought
and sold in the market. [206-E]
D
3.3. From a combined reading of the definition of 'immovable
property' in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and
Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is evident that in an
immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketability as under-
stood in the Excise Law. Whether an article is permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth requires determination of both the E
intention as well as the factum of fastening to anything attached to the
earth. And this has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of
each case. (206-G]

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Co1poration
F
ltd., (1991] Suppl. 2 SCC 18; Quality Steel Tubes (P) ltd v. CCE., (1995] 2
, SCC 372 and Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (1997] 1 SCC 203,
relied on.

Name Tuleman ManL!facturers Pvt. Ltd. v. CC" l989] 1 SCC 172,
held inapplicable. G
7 Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, (1998] 1 SCC 400, referred to.

4.1. Admittedly, a turbo alternator comes into existence only when a
steam turbine and alternator with all their accessories are fixed at the site
and only then it is known by a name different from the names of its
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A components in the market. On removal, a turbo alternator gets disman-
tled into its components • steam turbine and alternator. The CEGAT did
not keep in mind the distinction between a turbo alternator and its
components. Thus, the test of permanency fails. (208-H; 209-C]

4.2. The marketability test requires that the goods as such should
B
be in a position to be taken to the market and sold. Therefore, to take it
to the market the turbo alternator has to be separated into its components
• turbine and the other alternator • but then it would not remain
turbo alternator. Though, there is no finding that without fixing to the
platform such turbo alternator would not be functional, it is obvious that
c when without fixing, it does not come into being, it can hardly be func-
tional. (209-D]

5. On a combined reading of the Explanatory Notes to Heading 85.02
issued by the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, there can be no diffi-
D culty in inferring that installation or erection of turbo alternator on the
concrete base specially constructed on the land cannot be treated as a
common base and, therefore, it follows that installation or erection of
turbo alternator on the platform constructed on the land would be im-
movable property, as such it cannot be 'excisable goods' falling within the
meaning of Heading 85.02. (210-C]
E
CCE v. Wood Craft, (1995] 3 SCC 454, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13357-13358
of 1996.
F
From the Judgment and Order 20.6.96 of the Central Excise Customs
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in F.O. Nos. 1875-76/96- •
A in A. Nos. E/1759/95-A and E/5555/92-A.

V. Lakshmikumaran, V. Sridharan, V. Balachandran, R. Nambirajan and
G Shekhar Vyas for the Appellants.

M. Gauri Shankar Murthy, Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the
Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TRIVENI ENG. AND INDUSTRIES LTD. v. C.C.E. [QUADRI, J.] 203
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. These statutory appeals A
arise from the common order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the CEGAT') in Appeal Nos.El
1759/95-A and E/5555/92-A dated June 20, 1996. The appellants are the
assessees under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act').

The facts giving rise to these appeals are not in dispute. The appellants B
deal in turbo alternators which have two components : (i) steam turbine; and
(ii) complete alternator (also called 'Generator'). Of them, the appellants
manufacture steam turbine in their factories at Allahabad and Bangalore where
excise duty is paid on them under the Act. They purchase duty paid complete
alternators which are delivered at the site of the customer. On the ground that c
the appellants failed to declare manufacture of turbo alternators, show cause
notices were issued to them by the Collectors of Central Excise at Allahabad
and Bangalore, inter alia, stating that turbo alternators are liable to excise duty
under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the CET
Act'). The appellants resisted the claim on the ground that (i) a turbo alternator
set comes into existence on its being fixed permanently on the land as such it
D
is not an excisable good but an immovable property and (ii) by the combination
of 'steam turbine' and 'alternator', a turbo alternator emerges at the site of the
customers which does not involve any process of manufacturing, therefore,
they are not liable to excise duty.
E
On August 24, 1995, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and on
August 2~, 1992, the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirmed
the demand raised in the show cause notices. The assessees filed two
appeals against the orders of the said Collectors before the CEGAT. On the
question of levy of excise duty on turbo alternator, the CEGAT, by the im-
pugned order dated June 20, 1996, held that turbo alternators were liable to F
excise duty.

Mr. V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that·
(i) in combining steam turbine and alternator, no manufacturing process is
involved; (ii) the process consists of combining and fixing of the two compo-
nents permanently on platform raised at the premises of the customers and thus
G
what emerges is not goods but an immovable property; and (iii) in view of the
Circular No.17/89 dated April 21. 1989 issued by Central Board of Excise &
Customs, the case does not fall under Entry 85 .02 of the CET Act.

Mr. M. Gourishankar Murty, learned counsel for the respondents, in H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A support of the order of the Tribunal argued that combining steam turbine and
alternator amounted to manufacturing process and that merely because the
two components were fixed to the platform for efficient functioning of a turbo
alternator, it could not be said that it was an immovable property. In regard
to Circular No.17/89 (F.No.207173/88-CX.6), he submitted that it did not
relate to electric generator and it was not issued under Section 37-B of the
B
Act and in any event the point was not taken before the Tribunal.

The short question that falls for consideration is whether excise duty
can be imposed on a turbo alternator under the Act.

Section 3 of the Act which is the charging provision authorises levy and
c collection of duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or
manufactured in India at the rates mentioned in the Schedule to the CET Act.
To attract exigibility of excise duty, an article must satisfy the twin conditions
of being: (i) excisable goods; and (ii) produced or manufactured in India.

D First, adverting to the second condition - is any process of manufacture
involved in bringing into existence a turbo alternator? The process is noted by
the CEGAT. At the site, platform is constructed in which pockets are provided.
The steam turbine from the assessees' factory and the alternator from other
factories are transported to the site. The steam turbine is placed on the platform
which works as the foundation and then, after levelling, it is fastened with
E foundation bolts into the pocket. So also, the alternator is placed and bolted to
the steam turbine through a high speed coupling between the steam
turbine outer-shaft and alternator shaft and they are aligned properly. After
ensuring that there is no movement of the alternator pedestal, other accessories
are installed at their respective places. Having regard to this process, the
F CEGAT held, and in our view rightly, that the assessees manufactured turbo
alternators.
...
In State of Maharashtra v. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co.
Ltd., [1977] l sec 643, the question was whether mixing of manganese ores,
obtained from different mines, by a pre-determined mode of unloading at the
G ports resulted in manufacture of a conglomerate termed "oriental mixture" by
the company. It was held that the formation of the mixture by the mere process
of unloading did not involve any process of manufacture. The term 'oriental
mixture' was employed by the company to name a particular type of conglom-
erate which the unloading at one place of various types of manganese ore
H produced. What is to be determined is whether there has been manufacture of
TRIVENI ENG. AND INDUSTRIES LTD. v. C.C.E. [QUADRI, J.] 205
a new product which has a separate commercially current name in the market A
and that mere giving of a new name by the seller to what is really the same
product is not the manufacture of a new product.

Nearer to the issue is the decision of this Court in Name Tuleman
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad,
[1989] 1 SCC 172. The assessee therein carried on the activity of assembling B
the three components of the weighbridge and bringing into existence the
complete weighbridge which has a distinctive name, character or use. There
also, the assessee contended that out of the three components, only one,
indicator system of the machine, was being mam1factured by it which had
already suffered excise duty and the other components, which were also duty c
paid components, were purchased from others. It was held that the activity of
fitting and assembling the three components resulted in bringing into being
complete weighbridge which has a distinctive name, character or use. There-
fore, it would amount to manufacture of that product which is liable to excise
duty.
D
Thus, where an activity results in emergence of a new marketable
commodity with a distinctive name, character or use, it cannot but be
manufacturing process. (See : Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General
Mills, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 586. In the instant case, the appellants
were, according to specified designs, combining steam turbine and E
alternator by fixing them on a platform and aligning them. As a result of
this activity of the appellants, a new producli turbo alternator, came .
into existence which has a distinctive name and use different from its com-
ponents. Indeed, the Tribunal referred to the orders placed f9r purchase of
turbo alternator to point out that a new commodity emerges. On these facts,
we have no hesitation in holding that the process involved in fixing steam F
turbine and alternator and in coupling and aligning them in a specified manner
to form a turbo alternator, a new commodity, is nothing but a manufacturing
process.

Now reverting to the first condition, the expression 'excisable goods'
is defined in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act to mean goods specified in G
the Schedule to the CET Act as being subject to a duty of excise including
salt. It is thus clear that the goods which are sought to be subjected to the
excise duty must find a place in the Schedule to the CET Act. Impost on a
turbo alternator is levied under Entry 85 .02 in the said Schedule, which reads
as under : H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Heading No. Sub-Heading Description of Rate of Duty
No. Goods

(1) (2) (3) (4)
B
85.02 ELECTRIC GENERA-
TING SETS AND
ROTARY
CONVERTERS
8502:10 Diesel generating Nil
c sets assembled, at
site of installation,
from duty paid engine
and generator

D 8502.90 Other 13%

A perusal of the Entry shows that a turbo alternator does not find a place
therein eo nomine. The question then will be whether a 'turbo alternator' falls
within the meaning of 'electric generating set'. To bring a 'turbo alternator'
E under that heading it must be shown to have the attributes of excisable 'goods'
as understood in the Excis~ Law. They are mobility and marketability. The
article in question should be capable of being brought and sold in the market
- a test which is too well established by series of decisions of this Court to
be elaborated here.
F There can be no doubt that if an article is an immovable property, it
cannot be te1med as 'excisable goods' for purposes of the Act. From a •
combined reading of the definition of 'immovable property' in Section 3 of
the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is
evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor market-
G ability as understood in the Excise Law. Whether an article is permanently
fastened to anything attached to the earth require determination of both the
intention as well as the factum of fastening to anything attached to the earth.
And this has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case.

In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Irulian Oil
H Corporation Ltd., [1991] Suppl. 2 SCC 18, one of the questions this Court
TRIVENI ENG. AND INDUSTRIES LTD. v. C.C.E. [QUADRI, J.] 207
considered was whether a petrol tank, resting on earth on its own weight A
without being fixed with nuts and bolts, had been erected permanently with-
out being shifted from place to place. It was pointed out that the test was one
of permanency; if the chattel was movable to another place of use in the same
position or liable to be dismantled and re-erected at the later place, if the
answer to the former is in the positive it must be a movable property but if
the answer to the latter part is in the positive then it would be treated as B
permanently attached to the earth.

In Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, U.P.,
(1995) 2 SCC 372, this Court had to consider the question whether the tube
mill and welding head erected and installed by the appellant for the
manufacture of tubes and pipes out of duty-paid raw material were assessable
c
to duty under residuary Tariff Item No.68 of the Schedule, being excisable
goods within the meaning of Central Excise Act. While re-stating the test,
namely, first the article must be goods and secondly, that it should be mar-
ketable or capable of being brought to market, it was held that goods which
are attached to the earth and thus become immovable did not satisfy the test D
of being goods within the meaning of the Central Excise Act nor can be said
to be capable of being brought to the market for being sold. In that case, it
was found that both the tests were not satisfied and, therefore, the tube mill
and welding head erected by the appellant were not exigible to excise duty.
It was held that erection and installation of a plant could not be held to be E
excisable goods and if such wide meaning was assigned, it would result in
bringing in its ambit structures, erections and installations which would surely
not be in consonance with accepted meaning of excisable goods and its
exigibility to duty.

The question whether mono vertical crystallisers answer the meaning F
of 'goods' fell for consideration of this Court in Mittal Engineering Works (P)
.. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Mee rut, [1997] 1 SCC 203. Mono vertical
crystallisers are used in sugar factories to exhaust molasses of sugar. The
component parts of mono vertical crystallisers were cleared on payment of
excise duty from the premises of the appellants therein and they were then
assembled, erected and attached to the earth at the site of the customers' sugar
G
J factory. The process involved welding and gas cutting. The CEGAT held that
the mono vertical crystalliser was complete when it left the factory and upheld
the demand of excise duty on clearance thereof. This Court pointed out that
the mono vertical crystalliser, had to be assembled, erected and attached to
the earth by a foundation at the site of the sugar factory and it was not capable H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A of being sold as it is, without anything more. Bharucha,J., speaking for the
Court, observed :

"The erection and installation of a plant is not excisable and to so hold
would, impermissibly, bring into the net of excise duty all manner of
plants and installations."
B
The case of Name Tulaman Manufacturers (P) Ltd. (supra) was distin-
guished on the ground that in that case the contention that weighbridge was
not 'goods' within -the meaning of the Act, was not raised and no evidence
in that behalf was brought on record. It was observed : "We cannot assume
C that weighbridges stand on the same footing as mono vertical crystallisers in
that regard and hold that because weighbridges were held to be exigible to
excise duty so must mono vertical crystallisers".

Here, the decision of this Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector
of Central Excise, Hyderabad, [1998] l SCC 400, which is relied on by the
D learned counsel for the Revenue, needs to be referred to. In that case, the
question was whether paper-making machine which was assembled and erected
by the appellant by using duty paid components and by fabricating certain
parts in their factory, was liable to excise duty. The CEGAT recorded the
findin$ that the whole purpose behind attaching the machine to a concrete
E base was to prevent wobbling qf the machine and to secure maximum opera-
tional efficiency and also for safety. This court held that in view of those
findings it was not possible to hold that the machinery assembled and erected
by the appellant at its factory site was immovable property as something
attached to earth like a building or a tree. The test, it was noted, would be
whether the paper-making machine could be sold in the market and as the
F Tribunal had found as a fact that it could be sold, so the machine was held
to be not a part of immovable property of the company.

It appears that the aforementioned two cases - Mittal Engineering
Works (P) Ltd. and Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. (supra), - were not referred
G to in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.'s case.

Further, in the instant case, it is a common ground that a turbo alternator
comes into existence only when a steam turbine and alternator with all their
accessories are fixed at the site and only then it is known by a name different
from the names of its components in the market. The Tribunal recorded the
H finding that fixing of steam turbine and the alternator is necessitated by the
TRIVENI ENG. AND INDUSTRIES LTD. v. C.C.E. [QUADRI, J.] 209
need to make them functionally effective to reduce vibration and to minimise A
disturbance to the coupling arrangements and other connections with the
related equipments. It also noted that removal of the machinery does not
involve any dismantling of the turbine and alternator in the sense of pulling
them down or taking them to pieces but only undoing the foundation bolts
arrangement by which they are fixed to the platform and uncoupling of the
B
two units and, therefore, the turbo alternator did not answer the test of
permanency laid down by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay (supra). In our view, the findings recorded do not justify the
conclusion of the Tribunal inasmuch as on removal a turbo alternator gets
dismantled into its components - steam turbine and alternator. It appears that
the Tribunal did not keep in mind the distinction between a turbo alternator c
and its components. Thus, in our view, the test of permanency fails.

The marketability test requires that the goods as such should be in a
position to be taken to the market and sold and from the above findings it
follows that to take it to the market the turbo alternator has to be separated
into its components - turbine and the other alternator - but then it would not D
remain turbo alternator, therefore, the test is incorrectly applied. Though,
there is no finding that without fixing to the platform sµch turbo alternator
would not be functional, it is obvious that when without fixing, it does not
come into being, it can hardly be functional.
E
It will be useful to refer to the Explanatory Note issued by the Harmo-
nized System of Nomenclature (HSN) to which Mr.Sridharan invited our
attention. We also note that HSN received the approval of this Court in CCE
v. Woodcrc1ft, [1995] 3 SCC 454, which explained the scope of Heading 85.02
as under :
F
" ........ Generating sets consisting of the generator and its prime mover
which are mounted (or designed to be mounted) together as one unit
or on a common base (see the General Explanatory Note to Section
XVI), are classified here provided, they are presented together (even
if packed separately for convenience of transport)."
G
The Explanatory Note further contained :

''Floors, concrete bases, walls, partitions, ceilings, etc., even if spe-
cially fitted out to accommodate machines or appliances, should not
be regarded as a common base joining such machines or appliances to
form a whole." H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A From a perusal of the above Explanatory Notes, it is clear that when
generating sets consisting of the generator and its prime base mover are mounted
together as one unit on a common base they are classified under the Heading
85.02; in this connection floors, concrete bases, walls, partitions, ceilings etc.,
even if specially fitted out to accommodate machines or appliances, cannot be
regarded as a common base joining such machines or appliances to form a
B
whole. On a combined reading of the Explanatory Notes, extracted above, there
can be no difficulty in inferring that installation or erection of turbo alternator
on the concrete base specially constructed on the land cannot be treated as a
common base and, therefore, it follows that installation or erection of turbo
alternator on the platform constructed on the land would be immovable prop-
C erty, as such it cannot be 'excisable goods' falling within the meaning of
Heading 85.02.

For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not correct in
coming to the conclusion that the turbo alternator is excisable goods. We,
therefore, set aside the order under appeal and allow these appeals with costs.
D
V.S.S. Appeal allowed.