2003 (12) TMI 375 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods as furniture or handicraft for Central Excise Tariff; Eligibility for exemption under Notification 76/86.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order classifying goods manufactured by the appellant as either furniture or handicraft eligible for exemption under Notification 76/86. The authorities below did not consider the test laid down by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The appellant presented photographs and a certificate from a Handicrafts Development Corporation to support their claim that the goods are handmade and ornamental. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the evidence insufficient, emphasizing the lack of substantial ornamentation and low labor charges. The Commissioner also dismissed the certificate as it came from a commercial outlet.

The Tribunal reviewed the Supreme Court's tests for handicraft classification, emphasizing handmade production and substantial visual appeal. Contrary to the Commissioner's view, the Tribunal found the furniture pieces to be ornamented substantially, even though the carving was not in-lay work. The Tribunal deemed the certificate from the Handicrafts Development Corporation valid, as it attested to the manual labor and artistic nature of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the goods qualified as handicrafts and were eligible for exemption under Notification 76/86.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, granting exemption under Notification 76/86, overturning the impugned order, and allowing the appeal. The appellant was entitled to all consequential relief, including a refund of the duty amount deposited.