1996 (11) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of display cabinets under Notification No. 252/83-C.E. and Notification No. 42/84-C.E.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved the classification of display cabinets under Notification No. 252/83-C.E. and Notification No. 42/84-C.E. The appellant, M/s. Jay Engg. Co., Ahmedabad, claimed that their display cabinets should be considered as deep freezers for the purpose of exemption under the mentioned notifications. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had both ruled against the appellant, denying them the concessional rate of duty available for deep freezers. The key argument presented was that deep freezers and display cabinets are distinct items with different commercial uses, and the exemption specifically mentioned deep freezers. The tribunal analyzed the Central Excise Tariff and the exemption notifications to determine the scope of the term "deep freezers" and its applicability to display cabinets.

The tribunal examined the commercial distinction between deep freezers and display cabinets as presented by the respondent. It was highlighted that deep freezers are primarily used for storing vegetable goods and eatables, while display cabinets are used in commercial establishments like restaurants and supermarkets for showcasing items to customers. The respondent argued that since the exemption notification specifically mentioned deep freezers, it could not be extended to cover display cabinets automatically. This distinction was crucial in determining the eligibility for the concessional rate of duty under the exemption notifications.

The tribunal delved into the Central Excise Tariff and the exemption notifications to ascertain the classification of refrigerators and refrigerating appliances. It was noted that while specific products like ice makers, bottle coolers, display cabinets, and water coolers were illustratively mentioned under the tariff, the list was not exhaustive. The tribunal emphasized that the exemption notifications referred explicitly to deep freezers and did not encompass display cabinets. This interpretation was pivotal in understanding the scope of the exemptions and their application to different types of refrigeration appliances.

The tribunal further explored the technical aspects of deep freezers and display cabinets based on industry references. The characteristics of display cases, as described in a publication on refrigeration and air conditioning, highlighted the cooling mechanisms and design elements specific to display cabinets. The tribunal observed that deep freezers and display cabinets are distinct commodities in commercial parlance, each serving different purposes and having unique features. This distinction reinforced the tribunal's decision to interpret the exemption notifications strictly and limit the scope to products explicitly mentioned, such as deep freezers.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decisions of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, finding no merit in the appellant's claim. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had reviewed the classification list submitted by the appellants, which distinguished between deep freezers and display cabinets. The tribunal concurred with the authorities' interpretation of the exemption notifications and affirmed that the concessional rate of duty under the notifications did not extend to display cabinets. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of strict construction of exemption provisions and the commercial differentiation between deep freezers and display cabinets.