Extended limitation and excisability of site-fixed furniture upheld where the goods remained movable despite attachment at the site.

Extended limitation under Section 11A applied where the show cause notice alleged manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without duty payment with intent to evade, and the department's knowledge arose within the five-year period; the demand was therefore not time-barred. Furniture such as chairs, beds, tables and desks did not cease to be excisable merely because they were fixed at the site, because fixation alone does not make movable goods immovable property. The items were treated as manufactured goods falling under the relevant tariff headings, and only articles genuinely immovable were excluded. The adjudication order confirming duty, penalty and related reliefs was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of excise duty was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked; (ii) whether items such as chairs, beds, tables and desks fixed at the site were immovable property and therefore not liable to excise duty.

Issue (i): whether the demand of excise duty was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The show cause notice alleged manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty with an intention to evade duty. The surrounding contract terms indicated that the quoted rates included excise duty. The relevant knowledge of the department arose in 1997 and the notice issued in 2000 fell within five years. On these facts, the ingredients for invoking the extended period under Section 11A were satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation and the extended period was rightly invoked.

Issue (ii): whether items such as chairs, beds, tables and desks fixed at the site were immovable property and therefore not liable to excise duty.

Analysis: Furniture ordinarily denotes movable articles used for utility or ornamentation. The items in question were manufactured goods falling under the tariff headings noticed in the adjudication order, and the mere fact that some were fixed at the site did not convert them into immovable property. The adjudicating authority had separately scrutinised the items and excluded only those genuinely immovable. The Tribunal failed to meet those findings and erred in treating the goods as immovable.

Conclusion: The items were not immune from excise duty on the ground of being immovable property.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the adjudication order confirming duty, penalty and allied reliefs was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts show manufacture and clearance of excisable goods with an intention to evade duty, the extended limitation under Section 11A applies; and articles classifiable as furniture do not cease to be excisable merely because they are affixed at the site unless they truly become immovable property.

---