Marketability and commercial identity govern excisability; unfinished seat frames are not furniture, and licensing needs a valid notification.

Tubular steel frames and angles made for railway and motor vehicle seats were held not to be excisable goods as steel furniture because they were only specially fabricated components, not complete furniture in commercial understanding or a marketable finished article. The licensing requirement under Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act was also inapplicable because no notification had been issued making the manufacture a licenceable operation. In the absence of such notification, the authority could not compel the manufacturer to obtain a licence or follow the related formalities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tubular steel frames and angles manufactured for use in railway and motor vehicle seats were excisable goods falling within Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the petitioner was required to obtain a licence under Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 in the absence of a notification prescribing the manufacture as a licenceable operation.

Issue (i): Whether tubular steel frames and angles manufactured for use in railway and motor vehicle seats were excisable goods falling within Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Excisability depends on whether the article answers the statutory description and is a marketable commodity known to commerce. The goods in question were specially fabricated frames supplied to particular buyers as bases for further fitting and finishing. They were not complete furniture in trade parlance, and assembling the frames with cushions and other fittings would not convert the frames themselves into steel furniture. A mere component or part of furniture does not fall within Item 40, which covers steel furniture and not unfinished parts or base structures.

Conclusion: The goods did not fall within Item 40 and were not excisable goods as steel furniture.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was required to obtain a licence under Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 in the absence of a notification prescribing the manufacture as a licenceable operation.

Analysis: The charging provision and the licensing provision operate differently. Liability to licence under Section 6 arises only when the Central Government issues a notification in the Official Gazette specifying the relevant production or manufacture as a licenceable activity. Although the goods were treated by the department as a component of furniture, no notification had been issued authorising the demand for a licence for the petitioner's activity. In the absence of such notification, the authority could not compel the petitioner to take out a licence or observe the attendant formalities.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not bound to obtain a licence under Section 6.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on both substantive questions, and the demand for excise treatment and licensing could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An article is not excisable as furniture unless it is itself furniture in commercial understanding and marketability, and a licence under Section 6 can be insisted upon only when a valid notification specifically makes the manufacture licenceable.

---