9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, Advocate, for the appellants Shri Vineet Kumar, SDR, for the Department. 3. In filing their classification list the appellants noted that the storage system is mounted on fixed rails and would not therefore be steel furniture and that the classification under T.I. 40 is being filed under protest. On this protest being rejected and the classification being approved under-T.I. 40 the appellants preferred an appeal. A copy of the said appeal petition is part of the paper book. In this appeal also the appellants had contended that classification under T.I. 40 was incorrect. But it was not made clear whether they were claiming classification under T.I. 68 or were contending that the goods were not excisable at all. We say so since the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r volume of space but at the same time could be had to each individual, rack by moving the same on the rails. 5. The racks as well as rails are fabricated in the factory of the appellants and then taken to the place of the customer where the rails would be embodied in the earth to make them immobile, placing the racks on the rails to enable movement of the racks forward and backward on the rails. Thus, it is not as if the storage system comes into existence by erection out of the components at site as in the case of Elevator (considered in the OTIS Elevator Co. case - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 720 (G.O.I.). The article as removed from the factory of the appellants is the complete sliding storage system. Hence the contention that the product would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and contends that the position would be the same with reference to the goods in this appeal. But as already noted the goods in issue consist of a series of steel racks that move on rails. Steel racks and almirahs would be undoubtedly office furniture. Hence this decision would not support the case of the appellants. 8. The last decision relied on for the appellants is that of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Sales Corporation (1977 Vol. 39 STC 452). The Bombay High Court held that the motorised elevator mobile copper roller road racks would not be furniture. It is seen from the judgment that the article was a power operated storage rack which stored, shifted and placed rolls in the printing Deptt. at the regular place the move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
