Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. In the Chandan Metal Products case it was held that all articles of convenience or decoration used for purposes of furnishing a place of business or an office would be articles of furniture. It was held that a shelving rack used in an office or an industrial organisation would be an article of convenience for purposes of keeping files, papers, etc. and would, therefore, be an article of furniture. In the case of Simpson and Company Ltd. the Madras High Court held that a garage stool though to be used in a garage only by the workers in the garage would be a piece of furniture. In doing so the High Court took note of the fact that the relevant entry covered furniture of all sorts and would, therefore, not be confined to furniture used in homes and offices only. In the Materials Handling Engineering Company case the Bombay High Court took not of the fact that the trolleys concerned were to be used in factories only, for shifting goods from one place to another and would not, therefore, be articles of furniture. In the Union Sales Corporation case the Bombay High Court held that motorised elevators mobile copper roller rod racks would not be furniture as the same was a power operated storage rack which performs special functions such as storing as well as shifting the goods placed thereon backward and forward as well as upward and downward. Thus that case dealt with specialised equipment which though resembling a storage rack was in fact performing the functions of movement of goods upwards as well as sideways. In the Elpro International case the Bombay High Court held that an operation table which was equipped with special gadgets and special controls for movement of parts of the table to facilitate the performance of the surgical treatment of the patient placed thereon would not be furniture. In coming to that conclusion the Bombay High Court took note of the fact that the operation table apart from convenience-cum-decoration had special utility value by reason of the sophisticated attachments thereto to enable performance of special functions required on the part of the surgeon. At the same time the High Court held, so far as the other item is concerned (X-ray protective screen), that though the said screen was provided with special features such as lead glass window as well as a secondary radiation shield protective coating it would yet be an article of furniture as it could be used in a house as a normal screen. As pointed out, the judgment of the Bombay High Court with reference to operation table has been upheld by the Supreme Court when the Revenue approached the Supreme Court with reference to that finding.

24. When there is a decision of the Supreme Court on a particular issue it would be binding on all subordinate authorities. Therefore, the ratio of the Bombay High Court decision with reference to the operating table would have to be followed whenever the nature of any goods is to be considered for deciding whether the same would be an article of furniture. As earlier mentioned, the Bombay High Court took note of the fact that though termed a table, the operation table had specialised functions to perform and was suitably fabricated to facilitate the performance of such functions and has special attachments for use by the surgeon using the table. It further took note of the fact that the cost was much beyond what a similar article of normal household furniture would cost and by look also the operation table could not be called a mere table or a price of furniture. Hence if with reference to any of the goods in issue before us these criteria are satisfied, we are bound to hold that the said item would not be an article of furniture. On the other hand if, as held by the Bombay High Court with reference to X-ray screen, an article though provided with special features could yet be used as an ordinary article of furniture, it would still qualify to be classified as an article of furniture for purposes of levy of duty. All the decisions establish that an article of furniture may be found in a house or in an office or an industrial establishment. The qualification is, it should be an article of convenience or decoration. It should be noted that it need not be both an article of convenience and an article of decoration.

26. On a perusal of the proceedings before the lower authorities in the 3 appeals before us (vide show cause notices, orders-in-original, etc.) the products in issue are roughly seen to be described as tool holder, pigeon hole, welding table, storage rack; work bench; rack; 3-tier almirah die rack; 4-tier bin; and tea table. The appellants have filed detailed write-up in respect of these articles, giving details of specifications, material used in the making of the articles; weight as well as cost of manufacture and additional provisions as would not be found in normal office or house furniture of similar description and finally the appearance. The factual details are not in fact denied in the reply filed on behalf of the Collector, the contention therein being that the fact that the articles are made of heavy material or that some of them are not movable and that they are all made to be used by the appellants only and are not for sale, would not be relevant for a decision on the question whether they would be furniture falling under Item 40-CET. Therefore, we will have to assess the respective contentions with reference to the factual data furnished by the appellants.

27. It is seen that all the articles are made of heavy gauge steel, the necessity therefor being the nature of the use to which they were to be put. The tool holders and the die racks are mentioned to be so fabricated as to be capable of bearing very heavy weight. The tables are again manufactured out of heavy gauge steel and reinforced suitably as they have to withstand heavy pressures such as hammering, chipping, filling, sawing, etc. that will take place on the materials placed on the table for being worked on. It is again mentioned that a large number of these articles have provisions for being grouted to the floor by means of bolts since they will have to be kept rigid and without movement as may result due to the work performed on them. It is also mentioned that many of them, by reason of the heavy gauge material used, are abnormally heavy. It is also mentioned that the work benches are so fabricated as to facilitate particular pieces of machinery being kept thereon for being worked. It is mentioned that otherwise the workers will have to perform the work on the machine in a bending position, resulting in loss of productivity and that is why the work benches of necessary height are fabricated to enable the respective machinery to be kept on the bench for being worked. In such instances they would be really in the nature of being part of the machine itself though separate. So far as the tea table is concerned it has been mentioned that it is not really a table but in the nature of counter attached to the wall with the legs being grouted on the floor. The tool holders and pigeon holes are also fabricated with heavy gauge material in order to keep the heavy goods etc. at a convenient height and in separate lots to enable the workers to take them out as and when necessary. The 4-tier bins are also shown to be specially fabricated with heavy gauge material with provision for being fixed to the floor. It has also been mentioned that all these articles are not of the normal type design but are specially designed to suit the needs of the appellants in the respective places in the shop-floor where they are to be used and that they are roughly finished and do not have the aesthetic appearance one associates with furniture to be used in the house or office.