1971 (1) TMI 51 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the seats fitted in the buses amount to furniture for the purpose of excise duty.
2. Competency of a joint petition on behalf of two dealers.
3. Availability of statutory remedy before challenging the decision of the Collector of Central Excise.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, two firms engaged in building bodies for passenger buses, challenged the levy of excise duty on seats made of wood and steel fitted in buses. The Government had exempted "steel seats and chairs designed for use in automobiles" from duty, but the petitioners were still held liable for excise duty on seats of buses made of steel. The main issue was whether these seats constituted furniture under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court held that the seats, being an integral part of the bus for passenger seating and not meant for removal or use elsewhere, were more in the nature of fixtures than furniture. The Government's exemption of seats used in automobiles from duty further supported the conclusion that the seats in question were not intended to attract excise duty.

2. The written statement raised a preliminary objection regarding the competency of a joint petition on behalf of two dealers. The Court acknowledged the objection and limited the petition to one of the petitioners, thereby addressing the procedural issue.

3. Another preliminary objection raised was regarding the availability of a statutory remedy before challenging the Collector's decision. The Court dismissed this objection, stating that the Collector had already determined the liability to pay duty on the seats in question, which was the subject of challenge in the writ petition. The Court proceeded to analyze the nature of the seats and their classification as furniture for excise duty purposes, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and quashing the duty liability on the seats manufactured for passenger buses.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the interpretation of "furniture" under the excise law, distinguishing between fixtures and furniture in the context of seats fitted in buses. The Court's decision was based on the purpose and usage of the seats, emphasizing that they were an essential part of the bus for passenger accommodation and not meant for separate use as furniture. The judgment provided clarity on the excise duty liability concerning such seats and resolved the dispute in favor of the petitioner.