Manufacturer liability and marketability of furniture: supervision and control over hired labour support excise liability, while fixation alone does not make goods immovable.

A person who contracts for furniture manufacture, arranges materials, supervises execution, controls quality, and remains answerable to the customer is treated as the manufacturer when hired labour merely performs the work under that person's control. The article also rejects exemption as handicrafts absent proof of the required characteristics, and states that completed furniture does not become non-excisable merely because it is later bolted to walls or floors, since marketability is preserved. In remand, the adjudicating authority was directed to consider the cum-duty price principle and the plea on interest if duty is found payable, while the substantive pleas on manufacture, exemption, and marketability were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant company, which engaged labour and arranged the work of furniture manufacture at customer sites, was the manufacturer for central excise purposes; (ii) whether the furniture items were entitled to exemption as handicrafts; (iii) whether the furniture items were non-excisable for want of marketability or because certain items were fixed to walls or floors and therefore immovable; and (iv) whether, if duty was payable in de novo proceedings, the price should be treated as cum-duty price and interest considered under the relevant provision.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant company, which engaged labour and arranged the work of furniture manufacture at customer sites, was the manufacturer for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The contract with the customers was for manufacture of furniture to specified designs, and the evidence showed that the appellant arranged materials, supervised execution, controlled quality and completion, and remained responsible to the customers for the work. The record did not establish any independent principal-to-principal sub-contracting arrangement that would displace the appellant from the manufacturing role. The hired labour merely executed the work under the appellant's supervision and control, bringing the activity within the definition of manufacture.

Conclusion: The appellant company was held to be the manufacturer, and this plea was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the furniture items were entitled to exemption as handicrafts.

Analysis: The exemption claim was rejected because no material was produced to show that the goods in question satisfied the characteristics of handicrafts. The governing precedent had already negatived the broad proposition that wooden furniture was exempt as handicrafts without proof of the necessary factual attributes.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption as handicrafts was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the furniture items were non-excisable for want of marketability or because certain items were fixed to walls or floors and therefore immovable.

Analysis: The furniture was manufactured in completed form and thereafter fixed at the site. The materials on record showed that the items were capable of being bought and sold, and the mere fact of subsequent attachment by bolts, nuts or fixation to walls or floors did not make them immovable or non-marketable. The essential test remained capability of marketability, which was satisfied.

Conclusion: The plea that the goods were non-excisable for want of marketability or because they were immovable was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether, if duty was payable in de novo proceedings, the price should be treated as cum-duty price and interest considered under the relevant provision.

Analysis: The matter was directed to be considered afresh in the remand proceedings, and the adjudicating authority was required to apply the cum-duty price principle and examine the plea regarding interest if duty was found payable.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the cum-duty price and interest pleas in de novo proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The substantive pleas on manufacture, exemption, and marketability were rejected, but the matter was sent back for fresh decision on limitation and connected consequential reliefs, so the appeals stood allowed only to that extent by way of remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who contracts for manufacture, supplies or arranges materials, supervises execution, and remains responsible for completion and quality is the manufacturer for central excise purposes when the labour merely works under that person's control; subsequent fixation of completed goods does not by itself render them immovable or non-marketable.

---