2006 (8) TMI 26 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Modular furniture specially designed and meant for laboratory for research purpose Entitled to exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE dated. 1.3.1997 as accessories of scientific equipment

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement of exemption Notification 10/97-CE for furniture supplied to specific institutions; Classification of the supplied goods as Accessories under the notification.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the OIA No. 98/2005-CE dated 29.09.2005 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. The appellants manufactured furniture, availed exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE for supplying to specific institutions, but faced a demand for duty by Revenue. The dispute centered on whether the supplied goods qualified as Scientific and Technical Instruments or Accessories under the notification. The lower authorities upheld the demand and imposed penalties. The appellants contested this decision.

Shri K.K. Varier, representing the appellants, argued various points, including distinguishing between Notification 123/81 and 10/97-CE, emphasizing the necessity of a Certificate for research purposes, and citing relevant case laws supporting the appellants' position. The learned JDR for Revenue contended that the items supplied were not accessories to scientific equipment.

The Tribunal carefully reviewed the case records and the nature of the supplied furniture. The Notification granted exemption for Scientific and Technical Instruments, equipment, computers, and their accessories. The Tribunal noted the fulfillment of conditions like the Certificate for research purposes and registration with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The supplied furniture, specifically designed for laboratory use, was deemed essential for optimizing human well-being and system performance in a research environment.

The Tribunal delved into the concept of Ergonomics, emphasizing the importance of designing furniture to enhance human well-being and system performance in a research setting. Considering the ergonomic design of the furniture and the fulfillment of Notification conditions, the Tribunal concluded that the supplied goods could be classified as Accessories to Scientific Equipments. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on interpreting the Notification's conditions, the nature of the supplied furniture, and the relevance of Ergonomics in a research environment. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the practical utility and design of the furniture in determining its classification as an accessory under the exemption Notification.