1998 (7) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether aluminium dabbas, ghamelas, and doodh kundis qualify as utensils for exemption under Notification No. 180/88.

Analysis:
The advocate for the appellant argued that the items in question are aluminium utensils and should be exempt under Notification No. 180/88. The adjudicating authority granted exemption for Barni but denied it for the other three items, stating they are not utensils. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision and a High Court ruling, the advocate contended that the items should be considered utensils based on their utility in a household. The High Court's interpretation of the term 'utensil' from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary was presented to support this argument.

The Departmental Representative for the Revenue acknowledged the M.P. High Court decision but did not present any contrary arguments or supporting literature.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal accepted that aluminium dabbas meet the definition of utensils based on previous orders and rectification. Regarding the other two items, the Tribunal referred to the M.P. High Court decision where it was observed that similar hand-made utensils were exempt from taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation of 'utensil' from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, emphasizing that an item serving a useful purpose, even outside a household, can be considered a utensil. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for denying the exemption under Notification 180/88 and allowed the appeal.