TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajeev D. Waglay, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 22/2006 dated 7-3-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2 . Shri Rajeev D. Waglay, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.G. Dewalwar, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 3 . We heard both sides. 4 . The appellant is a proprietary concern having office at Mumbai and is engaged in the manufacture of wooden furniture falling under Chapter Heading 94.03. They had undertaken furnishing of the premises of M/s. ITC Windsor Sheraton at Bangalore, during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been set aside by the Supreme Court as reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) and the matter was remanded to this Bench for examining the issue in the light of the following observations :- "8. The issue which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether storage cabinets, kitchen counters, running counters, large reception/conference tables etc. are excisable as furniture. 9. Learned Counsels for the appellants Shri Laxmikumaran and Shri Madhav Rao submitted that these items are fixtures and not furniture, and hence were not subject to the levy of excise duty. 10. In this connection we may refer to Chapter Sub-heading 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which reads as under: "Other furniture and parts thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired for use or ornamentation in a house or office. Thus, ordinarily furniture is not something immovable or something which is fixed in a position which can be removed only by cannibalizing. We agree with learned Counsel for the appellants that the latter are fixtures and not furniture. 16. Several of the items in question in the present case e.g. kitchen over head and below counters, storage units are, in our opinion, clearly not 'furniture' and hence not excisable under Sub-heading 9403 as furniture. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that these appeals have to be allowed. We hold that items which are ordinarily immovable or which ordinarily cannot be removed without cannibalizing e.g. storage units, running ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ables, beds, etc. Hence we should give it this popular meaning. 21. The appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. No costs." 6 . In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, we find that the impugned items like Cabinet, Wardrobe, Luggage rack, etc. cannot be considered as excisable because these items cannot be removed or shifted from or place to another without cannibalization. In these circumstances, we have to consider that in the light of the Crafts Interior decision, which we ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
