1996 (10) TMI 111 - SC - Central Excise

Why the goods manufactured by the appellant should not be classified as parts of steel furniture falling within the scope of Tariff Item No. 40 of the Central Excise Tariff? Held that - The photograph shown to us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the parts manufactured by the appellant are used for erecting shelves in industrial establishment and since they are taken to almost the ceiling height, ladders and cat walks have to be erected for the purposes of approaching those shelves used for storing or displaying industrial stocks. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the parts other than slotted angles and channels used in the erection of shelves and storage system would fall within the meaning of parts of steel used in the preparation of steel furniture under Tariff Item No. 40 but not the slotted angles and channels made of steel which fall in the exclusion clause of Item 40. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 40 of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Interpretation of the term "steel furniture" under Tariff Item No. 40.
3. Determination of whether the goods manufactured are parts of steel furniture.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 40 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector classified the goods as parts of steel furniture, while the Appellate Collector ruled that they did not qualify as such. The Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) reversed the decision of the Appellate Collector, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of the term "steel furniture" under Tariff Item No. 40. The appellant argued that the goods manufactured, such as slotted panels, strips, corner tapes, cladding sheets, and partition plates, were used for industrial structures and did not fall within the definition of steel furniture. On the other hand, the Revenue claimed that these articles were used in the manufacture or fabrication of steel furniture and should be classified under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of "steel furniture" and referred to relevant circulars and communications regarding the interpretation of Tariff Item No. 40. The Court noted that the term "steel furniture" had not been precisely defined but had a broad connotation, including articles used in various establishments for storage or display purposes. The Court also considered a previous decision of the Gujarat High Court, which classified similar items as steel furniture for taxation purposes.

4. After examining the evidence, including photographs of the storage system erected using the manufactured goods, the Court concluded that the parts in question, excluding slotted angles and channels, could be classified as "parts of steel used in the preparation of steel furniture" under Tariff Item No. 40. The Court emphasized that the goods were integral in erecting shelves and storage systems in industrial establishments, aligning with the definition of steel furniture under the tariff.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs. The judgment clarified the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No. 40 and provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of "steel furniture" in the context of the case.