2008 (5) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of items manufactured by the respondent under Chapter Heading No. 3924.90 as "Household Articles" versus Chapter Heading 9403.00 as "Furniture".
2. Conflicting judgments regarding the classification of similar products.
3. Consideration of HSN Explanatory Notes for classification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Items:
The primary issue revolves around whether the items manufactured by the respondent should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 3924.90 of CETA 1985 as "Household Articles" or under Chapter Heading 9403.00 as "Furniture". The respondent claims the former, while the Revenue argues for the latter. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's claim, but the Revenue contends that these items should be classified as furniture, citing previous judgments and dictionary definitions of 'furniture'.

2. Conflicting Judgments:
The referral bench noted conflicting judgments on similar issues. In a previous case involving the same respondent ([2007 (210) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]), the Tribunal classified plastic shelves as household articles under sub-heading 3924.90. Conversely, in Pradeep Rathod v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat ([2003 (158) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.-Mumbai)]), the Tribunal classified trolleys with several columns as furniture under heading 94.03. The Revenue emphasized that the Supreme Court had dismissed a civil appeal against this classification, reinforcing their stance.

3. Consideration of HSN Explanatory Notes:
The Tribunal examined the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 94, which exclude small furnishing goods of wood and office equipment of plastics from being classified as furniture. The Tribunal found that the plastic shelves in question are small articles typically placed on tables, kitchen platforms, or bathroom platforms, and thus do not fit the definition of furniture under Chapter 94. Instead, they align more closely with household articles under Chapter 39.24.

Conclusion:
After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the judgment in the case of Pradeep Rathod did not adequately consider the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 94. The Tribunal found that the items in question, being small plastic shelves designed for placement on other furniture or platforms, are more appropriately classified under Heading 3924.90 as household articles. The Tribunal upheld the decision in the case of Cello Household Appliances Ltd. ([2007 (210) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]) as the correct judgment for the classification of the articles in dispute.

Final Order:
The Tribunal held that the plastic shelves manufactured by the respondent are properly classifiable under Heading 3924.90. The reference was answered in favor of the respondent, and the Registry was directed to place the file before the Referral bench for further action. The judgment was pronounced in court on 5-5-2008.