TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on excisability of furniture fixtures under Central Excise law</h1> <h3>INTERSCAPE Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III</h3> INTERSCAPE Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-III - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Interpretation of Chapter Heading 94.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 regarding the excisability of certain items like storage cabinets, kitchen counters, and other furniture.- Whether certain items like Cabinet, Wardrobe, Luggage rack, etc., manufactured for a specific project can be considered excisable under the Central Excise law.Analysis:1. Interpretation of Chapter Heading 94.03:The case involved a dispute regarding the excisability of items falling under Chapter Heading 94.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The main contention revolved around whether items like storage cabinets, kitchen counters, and similar fixtures should be considered excisable as furniture. The appellants argued that such items were fixtures and not furniture, thus not subject to excise duty. The Tribunal referred to various dictionary definitions of 'furniture' to determine the ordinary meaning of the term. It was concluded that items like storage units, running counters, overhead units, and similar fixtures were not excisable under Sub-heading 9403 as furniture. On the other hand, traditional furniture items like tables, desks, and chairs were considered excisable.2. Excisability of Specific Items:The Tribunal further analyzed the specific items in question, namely Cabinet, Wardrobe, Luggage rack, etc., manufactured for a particular project. It was observed that these items could not be removed or shifted without cannibalization, making them immovable once installed. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations in a previous case to determine that these items, once made, became immovable and fixed in-situ, thereby not meeting the criteria for excisability under the Central Excise law. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalty on these items was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of Chapter Heading 94.03 in distinguishing between excisable furniture items and non-excisable fixtures. Additionally, the specific analysis of the items manufactured by the appellant highlighted the immovable nature of certain products, leading to the decision that they were not excisable under the Central Excise law.
TaxTMI 