2004 (7) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of certain non-wooden furniture items for concessional duty under Notification 80/90.

Analysis:
1. Tool Storage Cabinet (TSC):
- The appellant argued that TSC is distinct from a cupboard, designed for heavy tools, with drawers capable of carrying heavier loads compared to a cupboard.
- The Jt. CDR referred to HSN mentioning "cupboard for tools" and dictionary definitions of a cupboard.
- The Tribunal differentiated between a cupboard and TSC based on design, material, and purpose, concluding that TSC is more akin to a "Bureau" and not a cupboard.

2. Centre-piece Tables:
- The denial of concessional duty was based on the claim that the tables were cleared as parts, not complete furniture.
- The appellant contended that the tables were dispatched in sets for ease of transportation, with no additional assembly charges, and should not be classified as parts but as complete furniture.

3. Moulded Plastic Chairs (MPC):
- The appellant argued that MPCs were cleared in knocked-down condition for transport, not as parts, and should be eligible for concessional duty.
- Previous tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings were cited to support the claim that MPCs in knocked-down condition should be treated as complete chairs.

4. Tool Transport Trolley:
- No specific findings were provided by lower authorities regarding the eligibility of trolleys for the concessional duty.
- The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for a rehearing to decide the issue on merits.

5. Overall Decision:
- The appeal was partly allowed concerning Tool Cabinets, Centre Tables, and Plastic Moulded Chairs, while remanded for Trolleys.
- The Tribunal emphasized the need for a common parlance test over technical or scientific tests in determining product classification, ensuring fair application of the notification's provisions.