2008 (1) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise

Kitchen & household articles i.e. Shoe rack, part of wardrobe for hanging & keeping clothes etc.- it is not denied by Revenue that goods are different types of baskets which are meant for use in the kitchen or household. They are specially designed to be used in shelves below the kitchens platform for holding various types of kitchen articles - goods in question cannot be held to be as furniture so classifiable u/ch 73 goods not classifiable under chapter 94

Summary

Issues:
Classification of products as kitchen and household articles under Chapter 73 vs. furniture under Chapter 94.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of products manufactured by the respondent as either kitchen and household articles falling under Chapter 73 or furniture falling under Chapter 94. The Assistant Commissioner classified the articles as kitchen and household articles based on examination of literature, common parlance test, Superintendent's report, and interpretive rules. The Commissioner upheld this classification, emphasizing that goods should be classified based on usage and trade parlance, favoring the assessee when two views are possible. The Tribunal reviewed the impugned order, considering the literature, product use, and Superintendent's report. The Tribunal noted that the goods were designed for kitchen and household use, with some items intended for specific locations like kitchen platforms and shoe racks. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the Revenue's claim that the goods should be classified as furniture under Chapter 94. It concluded that the lower authorities correctly classified the goods under Chapter 73 as kitchen and household articles, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This case highlights the importance of proper classification of goods based on their nature, intended use, and common understanding. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of considering factors such as product design, intended location, and expert reports in determining the appropriate classification under relevant tariff headings. The principle that goods should be classified according to their common usage and trade understanding guides the classification process, ensuring consistency and accuracy in customs duties and taxation. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the product characteristics, literature, and expert opinions demonstrates a thorough approach to resolving classification disputes in line with established legal principles and precedents. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for a holistic assessment of all relevant factors to arrive at a correct classification of goods for customs and excise purposes, promoting clarity and consistency in the application of tariff schedules.