2026-VIL-73-CESTAT-CHD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-73-CESTAT-CHD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Supply and installation of Retail Visual Identity (RVI) Elements at retail outlets - Aluminium doors/frames/shutter/lockers, Marketability – Appellant is engaged in fabrication and installation of RVI Elements for IOCL at their retail outlets. The Appellant also manufactured aluminium doors, windows, frames for various customers. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the Appellant was not paying the full excise duty on the entire contract value of the RVI Elements and aluminium products supplied - Whether the RVI Elements and aluminium doors/frames/shutter/lockers installed by the Appellant at the sites of its vendors are liable to central excise duty – HELD - The RVI Elements are not cleared from the factory in fully manufactured condition, rather they come into existence as a part of permanent structure at the retail outlets of IOCL. Once installed, the RVI Elements cannot be dismantled or re-installed at alternate locations. Further, the RVI Elements are not resold/marketed by IOCL, and the parts in the form cleared from the factory are not capable of being used for any other purpose - In the case of RVI Elements, the Test of Marketability has also not been satisfied because these parts, in the form that they are cleared, are not capable of being used for any other purpose than the fabrication and installation of RVI Elements at the retail outlets of IOCL only. The parts of the RVI Elements are not capable of being bought and sold for a consideration in the form that they exist when they are cleared from the factory, and thus they cannot be deemed to be marketable. Therefore, the test of marketability is not satisfied, and the RVI Elements cannot be considered as "excisable goods" liable to excise duty - Similarly, for the aluminium doors, windows, frames, etc., the issue was already settled in favour of the Appellant in a previous order, which attained finality as it was not challenged by the Department. The final products are "immovable property" and hence not chargeable to excise duty - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the extended period of limitation is justified in this case – HELD - The Appellant has been regularly filing returns and paying excise duty on the goods manufactured, without any suppression of facts, fraud or misstatement. The Appellant was under a bona fide belief that the RVI Elements are "immovable property" and not subject to excise duty. Further, the issue was settled in favour of assessees in similar cases. Therefore, the invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified, and the entire demand is barred by limitation.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?