Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 May, 1996
However, I also give my findings on certain specific points raised in this appeal by the appellant. Producing on extract from page 3 of the order of the Assistant Collector, wherein he has stated interalia that the concept of mobility to determine whether the system is furniture or not, then the appellant has arged that the same is contradictory to note 2 of chapter 94. The appellant has referred to the said not and has argued that the words 'placing' is of paramount importance and that an item is to be classified under chapter 94 as furniture only if they are meant for 'placing' and not 'fixing'. The learned Advocate at the time of personal hearing stressed the point that 'placing' is distinct from 'fixing'. IN the case of mobile storage system (mobile storage racks), they are fixed to the earth by grouting. Therefore, they cannot be called as being 'placed' so as to fall within the nomenclature of furniture. The appellant has further gone on to refer to the meaning given in various dictionaries for the term 'furniture' and according to them, these dictionaries would define a 'furniture' as movable articles. They have also placed reliance on a decision of the Special Bench CEGAT, in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Patna. With reference to these arguments, it is necessary to mention here that the appellant manufactures mobile storage racks. This consists of mobile blocks placed on rails fixed to the earth. One block is permanent and the remaining blocks are mobile. The advantage in having the mobile racks is that if saves place in as much as the aisle space between 2 blocks can be obtained by moving the blocks. In other words, it amounts to shifting the aisle place so as to get the space between the desired blocks. Excepting for one block, the other blocks are mobile. As earlier said, since these blocks (except one) move on rails fixed to the earth and the system as a whole is fixed to the ground through the rails, the appellant contends that the mobile storage rack cannot be called as 'movable' but they are fixed to the ground. Therefore, the appellant contends that they do not fall within the nomenclature 'furniture' and in that context, they have assailed the order of the Assistant Collector as referred to above and have also drawn attention to the meaning given to the term 'furniture' in the different dictionaries and also by the Tribunal in the order referred to above. At the outset, I will have to mention here that the dictionary meaning alone cannot be relied upon for classification of excisable goods. It is a well settled law that, for purposes of classification, the Section notes and Chapter notes play a vital role and they also form part of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, in deciding the classification of any goods, the section notes and chapter notes also will have to be taken into account. The question of relying on the meaning of any term given in dictionaries will arise only if the classification cannot be made with the help of the chapter notes and section notes. When the Assistant Collector has stated that the mobility of the system has not relevance, he has therefore kept the same in ming. The appellant has extracted note 2 of page 94 (SIC) have argued that the articles referred to in heading numbers 94.01 to 94.03 are to be classified under these headings only if they are designed for placing on the floor or ground. The appellant has very conveniently omitted the remaining portion in the same note which reads as follows; "The following are, however, to be classified in the above mentioned headings even if they are designed to be hung, to be fixed to the wall or to stand one on the other; (a) cupboards, book cases, other shelved furniture and unit furniture, (b) seats and beds'. This mades it very clear that even if the goods are designed to be hung or designed to be fixed to the wall or to stand one on the other, they will fall under chapter 94. In other words, it does not mean that only if the goods are such as it can be placed or mobile that they will fall under this chapter. The appellant has further referred to the meaning of the term 'furniture' as given in page 1574 of the HSN notes and have again argued that only movable articles can be classified under chapter 94. Here again, the appellant has omitted to note the point that the same notes also states that articles are considered to be 'movable' furniture even if they are designed for bolting etc. to the floor, for example, chaprs for use on ships. The above notes will clinch the issue and therefore it is not necessary that only mobile articles can be called as furniture and not others. Even when the furniture is designed for bolting etc. to the floors, they fall under chapter 94. The appellant has further gone on to refer to the HSN notes at page 1020 and have argued that a per the notes therein, heading 7308 includes large scale shelving for assembly and permanent installation in shops, workshops, storehouses, etc. stalls and racks. Therefore, the appellant claims that in view of these notes, the mobile racks will fall under chapter 73. According to me, the largescale shelving for stalls and racks etc; referred to above, would refer to those which are permanent and fixed. This is clear from the further notes available at page 1021 ibid where it says that the said heading i.e. 7308 does not cover 'movable shelved furniture' falling under heading 94.03. Even otherwise, a reading of the tariff heading 73.08 will give a clear picture that it does not cover the goods of the type manufactured by the appellant.
Materials Handling Engg. Co. vs M.G. Waknis, Superintendent Of Central ... on 17 October, 1979
The appellant has also placed reliance on a judgement of the Bombay High-Court in the case of Materials Handling Engineering Co. Vs. MG Wakins, Superintendent of Central Excise and others reported in 1980 ELT 231 (Bom) and have argued that the Hon'ble Bombay High court have ruled therein that the word 'furniture' has got a peculiar cannotation and indicates that these articles can be used for the convenience or comfort of a human being either in the house or in the office. I have already dealt with this aspect as to how on e cannot go by the meaning of the term 'furniture' given in the dictionaries. This judgement is of no relevance to the present case because this has been passed on 31/10/79 under the old Central Excise Tariff. The article in question is to be classified in terms of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which has got its own indepth mechanism for arriving at the classification of the goods with reference to the Section notes and Chapter notes (as against the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff which did not have any such notes)....."
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1