9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese goods as steel furniture under Item No. 40 of Central Excise Tariff 3. However, consequent upon the decision of the Government of India contained in their Order No. 1313 of 1976, in the case of another unit viz. M/s. Ajay Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., Eros Cinema Building, New Delhi the said party i.e. M/s. Modern Engineering Co, Azad Market, Delhi filed a revised classification list seeking approval of cinema chairs as non-exisable on the ground that identical chairs were being manufactured by them. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MOD. II, New Delhi by his order dated 18-3-1977. The Assistant Collector observed that the cinema chairs fall in the category of steed furniture under Tariff Item 40 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was taken in the aforesaid proceedings. 6. The party was also given an opportunity of personal hearing in this case. In their reply dated 21-9-1978 to the show cause notice as well as during the course of personal hearing at New Delhi, on 4-4-1979, when their representative, (who appeared alongwith partners of the party's firm) appeared with a power of attorney and explained the party's case. He refuted the validity and justification of the aforesaid revision proceedings. The points broadly urged on behalf of the party are as under: (i) The case of the party could not be distinguished from the case of M/s. Ajay Enterprises in which it had already been held by the Government of India that cinema chairs are not in the nature of furnit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bus chairs be used as furniture because on being dismantled these one-leg units could not stand on their own so as to serve as furniture. It was further contended that the cinema chairs were more like dental chairs about which, the Bombay High Court had recently ruled in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Associated Dental and Medical Supply Co. - 1976 (37) STC 336 that they were not in the nature of furniture. (iv) The party's representative also argued that cinema chairs were not "goods" as defined in the Act, but are immovable property, in accordance with the ratio of the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of S.N. Rolling Mills v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise - 1977 E.L.T. (J 141) in which the court had held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of furniture in B.T.N. cannot be made the basis of classifying goods for purposes of Central Excise duty in India because Item No. 40 of Central Excise Tariff was not patterned on the B.T.N. and this definition of furniture given in B.T.N. had already been rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jeevan Singh v. Superintendent of Central Excise, cited above. 7. Government of India have carefully considered the submissions made by the party in reply to the show cause notice and those urged at the time of personal hearing. Government of India find that cinema chairs are no doubt associated with the furniture as popularly understood. However. the fact remains that the dictionary meaning of the word 'furniture' accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
