1997 (5) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Carriage Trolleys under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Applicability of the new Central Excise Tariff effective from 1-3-1986.
3. Interpretation of the terms "vehicles" and "furniture" under the Tariff.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Carriage Trolleys under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
The appellants, M/s. Industrial Laundry and Dry Cleaning Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd., sought classification of their trolleys under Heading No. 87.16, which covers "trailers and semi-trailers, other vehicles not mechanically propelled; parts thereof." The Revenue, however, classified these trolleys under Heading No. 94.03 as "other furniture and parts thereof." The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, both upheld the classification under Heading No. 94.03, asserting that in common parlance, these trolleys were not understood as vehicles but were similar to food trolleys, air-conditioning trolleys, dressing trolleys, and tea trolleys, which are all classifiable as articles of furniture.

2. Applicability of the new Central Excise Tariff effective from 1-3-1986:
The appellants argued that the new Central Excise Tariff, effective from 1-3-1986, should change the classification of the trolleys from furniture to vehicles. They contended that the trolleys were for the carriage of goods within industrial establishments and were not marketed as articles of furniture. The Revenue countered that the nature of the goods remained the same, and the introduction of the new Tariff did not alter the classification from furniture to vehicles.

3. Interpretation of the terms "vehicles" and "furniture" under the Tariff:
The Tribunal carefully considered the nature and use of the trolleys. It was observed that the term "other furniture" under Heading No. 94.03 had to be analyzed with reference to the descriptions under Heading Nos. 94.01 and 94.02. The Tribunal noted that functional, specialized, and utility items used by various professions are not excluded from the coverage of "furniture." The essential character of the trolleys was not given by their castors but by their space, design, and functional utility. The Tribunal emphasized that vehicles and furniture are terms with diverse meanings depending on the context. The trolleys in question were designed for storing, hanging, and keeping clothes, and their movement was for functional use, not for transport. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents and dictionary definitions to conclude that the trolleys were more akin to furniture than vehicles.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the trolleys were not in the nature of vehicles but were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 94.03 as items of furniture. The appeal was rejected, and the classification under Heading No. 94.03 was upheld.