• Today: November 02, 2025

triveni-engineering-and-industries-ltd-v-commissioner-of-central-excise

02 November, 2025
301
Triveni Engineering v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2000) — Turbo Alternator Excise Duty | The Law Easy

Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2000)

Turbo alternator excise duty—what counts as “goods,” “manufacture,” marketability, and mobility under Indian excise law.

Court: Supreme Court of India Year: 2000 Bench: SC Citation: (2000) 7 SCC 29 Area: Indirect Tax (Excise) Reading: ~8 min
```
Author: Gulzar Hashmi   •   India   •   Published: 01 Nov 2025
Turbo alternator assembly representing Triveni Engineering excise duty dispute
```
```

Quick Summary

Triveni Engineering decided if a turbo alternator is “goods” for excise duty. The Court held: the finished turbo alternator comes into being only after the turbine and alternator are fixed together at the customer’s site. As a result, it is not separately marketable as such. Therefore, it is not excisable. Appeals allowed; tribunal order set aside.

Issues

  • Can a turbo alternator be charged to excise duty under the Act?
  • Do the tests of manufacture, marketability, and mobility stand satisfied?

Rules

  • For excise duty (Section 3), an article must be: (i) excisable goods, and (ii) produced or manufactured in India.
  • “Goods” must have marketability (can be taken to market and sold as such) and mobility.

Facts (Timeline)

View image
Business: Triveni deals in turbo alternators (steam turbine + alternator).
Manufacture & Duty: Steam turbines are made at Allahabad/Bangalore and duty is paid. Alternators are bought duty-paid and sent to site.
Show-cause: Collectors say turbo alternators are excisable under Heading 85.02, CET Act 1985.
CEGAT: Holds turbo alternators liable to duty.
Assessee’s stand: Site assembly only; no new product as marketable goods; final unit is effectively immovable at site; Entry 85.02 inapplicable.
Department’s stand: Combining equals manufacture; bolting to a platform does not make it immovable.
Appeal: Matter reaches the Supreme Court.
Timeline showing manufacture, notices, tribunal decision, and Supreme Court appeal in Triveni Engineering
How the dispute moved from Collectors to CEGAT to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Triveni)

  • At site, parts are only combined; no “manufacture” of a separate marketable product.
  • The finished unit is known as a turbo alternator only after fixing at site.
  • As a whole, it is not independently marketable; Entry 85.02 does not fit.
  • Structure is fixed; resembles immovable property at the site.

Respondent (CCE)

  • Combining turbine + alternator = manufacture of a new product.
  • Bolting is for efficient working; does not convert it into immovable property.
  • Hence, the turbo alternator is excisable under Heading 85.02.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals with costs and set aside the tribunal’s order. The Court held that the finished turbo alternator is not excisable.

  • It comes into existence as a distinct unit only after site assembly and fixing.
  • To take it to market as “turbo alternator,” it would have to be separated back into turbine and alternator—then it is no longer the same goods.
  • Removal needs only unbolting/uncoupling, but the real test here is marketability as such, which fails.
Gavel and factory backdrop indicating Supreme Court judgment on excise duty liability

Ratio Decidendi

The twin conditions under Section 3—excisable goods and manufacture in India—must be met. “Goods” must be marketable as such and have mobility. A turbo alternator becomes a distinct product only after site fixing; it is not marketable as a separate movable article. Therefore, it is not excisable.

Why It Matters

  • Clarifies marketability as a core test for excise duty.
  • Helps industry on site-assembled machinery and large installations.
  • Guides classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Key Takeaways

  • Marketability rules: The article must be saleable as such.
  • Mobility matters: Being movable in commerce is key.
  • Site assembly ≠ automatic manufacture: Look for a new, marketable product.
  • Turbo alternator: Not excisable as a separate movable good.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: T-U-R-B-OTwo parts, Unite at site, Requires marketability, Bolts don’t decide, Out of excise.

  1. Ask: Is there a new product known to the market?
  2. Check: Can it be sold as such (not by breaking into parts)?
  3. Conclude: If not saleable as such, not excisable.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a site-assembled turbo alternator excisable under the Act?

Rule

Goods must be manufactured in India and be marketable & movable as such.

Application

Turbo alternator exists as a distinct product only after site fixing; not saleable as such without separation.

Conclusion

Not excisable; tribunal set aside; appeals allowed with costs.

Glossary

Marketability
Capability of being taken to market and sold as such.
Mobility
Being movable in commerce without losing identity as goods.
Manufacture
Bringing into existence a new, distinct product known to the market.
Heading 85.02
Tariff entry related to certain electric generators/alternators under CET Act, 1985.

FAQs

The turbo alternator, as a complete unit, is not excisable because it is not marketable as such; it becomes a distinct product only after site fixing.

The focus was not on permanency alone. Even if unbolting is possible, marketability as a complete turbo alternator is missing. Hence, no excise duty.

Because the turbo alternator reaches that identity only after site assembly. To sell it, you must split it back into parts—then it is no longer that product.

Excisable goods + manufactured in India, along with marketability and mobility of the goods as such.

It was set aside. The Supreme Court allowed Triveni’s appeals with costs.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Excise Indirect Tax Marketability Manufacturing
```

Comment

Nothing for now