2003 (9) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of trolleys and racks under the Customs Tariff, eligibility for exemption under Notification 15/94, liability for penalty.

Classification of Trolleys:
The issue in this appeal was the classification of trolleys made of plastic. The appellant contended that the trolleys should be classified as household articles, while the Commissioner classified them as furniture. The trolley consisted of columns with circular or rectangular surfaces for holding articles. The appellant argued that it was sold as a household article and not as furniture. However, based on the appearance, design, and use of the trolley, it was considered more appropriately classifiable as furniture. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where a similar trolley was classified as furniture. The claim that the trolley was sold only in shops selling household items was not supported by evidence, leading to the confirmation of the classification as furniture.

Classification of Racks:
The appeal also involved the classification of racks made of plastic. The appellant argued that the racks should not be classified as furniture because they were designed not to be placed on the floor. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the racks could be used on the floor, as many household activities centered around the floor. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to support the claim that the racks were designed only for specific surfaces like kitchen counters. The sample of the product showed that it could effectively be used on the ground or floor. The classification of the racks as furniture was confirmed based on the absence of evidence supporting their classification as household items.

Extended Period of Limitation:
Regarding the extended period of limitation for demanding duty on goods cleared between specific dates, the appellant argued that the period should not apply as they had made declarations to the department about the nature of the goods. However, the Tribunal found that the declarations made did not provide sufficient information for the officers to determine the correct classification of the goods. The claim that officers examining the goods should have been aware of the classification was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was available to the department, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of both trolleys and racks as furniture, denied the eligibility for exemption under Notification 15/94, and confirmed the liability for penalty, dismissing the appeals.