1984 (10) TMI 43 - SC - Central Excise

Whether Operation Tables are not furniture? Held that - In our view the reasons stated by the High Court the Operation Tables cannot be considered to be furniture and therefore they cannot be considered to be steel furniture within the meaning of Item No. 40 in the First Schedule to the Act and therefore no duty could be levied on the Operation Tables are acceptable. The High Court has however held that in so far as the X-ray Protective Screens are concerned they can be considered to be steel furniture within the meaning of Item No. 40 and therefore upheld the levy of duty on this particular item.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the decision of the High Court regarding excise duty on Operation Tables and X-ray Protective Screens.
2. Classification of Operation Tables and X-ray Protective Screens under Item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Appeal against the judgment of the High Court regarding the levy of excise duty.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal challenged the High Court's decision on the imposition of excise duty on Operation Tables and X-ray Protective Screens manufactured by the respondent-Company. The High Court held that Operation Tables are not considered furniture and do not fall under Item No. 40, thus excise duty cannot be imposed on them. However, X-ray Protective Screens were classified as "steel furniture" under Item No. 40, and duty was upheld on them.

Issue 2: The High Court concluded that Operation Tables do not qualify as furniture and, therefore, do not come under Item No. 40 for excise duty purposes. On the other hand, X-ray Protective Screens were deemed to be "steel furniture" under the same item, justifying the levy of duty on them. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning and upheld the classification of the items based on the specific characteristics and usage.

Issue 3: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, the Collector, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona. The Court concurred with the High Court's decision and reasoning, finding no merit in the appeal. Additionally, the Court directed the Union of India to pay a specified amount to the respondent-Company for interest and costs related to the wrongly collected excise duty, as per an earlier order of the Court.

Separate Judgment: In a related appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 1980), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-Company regarding Orthopaedic and Fracture Tables known as 'ORTHOPOISE-99.' The Court held that these items do not fall under Item No. 40, and any duty collected on them should be refunded within three months. Failure to refund within the specified period would attract interest at a specified rate. The Court also directed the disposal of a pending revision petition in light of its order in the appeal.