In-situ interior fixtures are not furniture for excise purposes, so duty demand and penalty cannot survive.

Cabinets, wardrobes, luggage racks and similar items made and fixed in situ during interior furnishing were treated as fixtures, not furniture, because sub-heading 9403 covers movable articles used for furnishing a room or building. Items that cannot be removed without dismantling or cannibalising them do not answer the ordinary and common parlance meaning of furniture. Applying that principle, the items were held not excisable as furniture, so the duty demand and consequential penalty could not survive and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether cabinets, wardrobes, luggage racks and similar items made and fixed in-situ during interior furnishing are excisable as furniture under sub-heading 9403, and whether duty, interest and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: Furniture under sub-heading 9403 contemplates movable articles used for furnishing a room or building. Items which are ordinarily immovable, or which cannot be removed without dismantling or cannibalizing them, are in substance fixtures and not furniture. The decision followed the Supreme Court's clarification that the ordinary and common parlance meaning of furniture governs, and that items fixed to a structure and becoming immovable in situ do not answer that description. On that basis, the impugned items were treated as non-excisable, and the consequential levy of duty and penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The items were held not excisable as furniture, and the demand of duty and imposition of penalty were set aside.

---