1998(10)LCX0114

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

FURNITURE FACTORY

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

Final Order No. 905/98-D, dated 29-10-1998 in Appeal No. E/4026/92-D

Advocated By : Shri G.S. Bhangoo, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Question involved in this matter is regarding classification of dual-desk made of wood. The said goods comprises of (1) seating arrangement made for two persons (2) a desk for two persons and (3) both the seat and the desk are joined together by steel pipes. The appellants herein filed a classification list describing the goods as “all types wooden furniture and parts thereof” and claimed classification under Tariff Heading 9403.00. The classification list was approved.

2. Later on, on the basis of some queries and audit objection it was felt by the Revenue that the said product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 94.01 carrying the nomenclature “seats” inasmuch as the dual-desk has a seating arrangement for two school children, a show cause notice was issued asking the appellant as to why duty of Rs. 1,50,049.22 be not recovered from them for the period 30-10-1986 to 31-12-1988 against the show cause notice dated 15-10-1991. The lower authorities have confirmed the aforesaid amount of duty against the appellants both on the question of classification and on the plea of time bar taken by the appellant. Hence this appeal before us.

3. Learned Advocate Shri G.S. Bhangoo for the appellant urges that the product as described above cannot be considered to be a `seat’. Seat is only a part of it. It is attached to a desk. The desk falls within Tariff Heading 94.03. The goods are described in the Trade as “dual-desk”, therefore by common parlance the goods would get classified under Tariff Heading 94.03.

4. He further submits that even if it is considered to be a composite product, the essential character is imparted by desk as it is clear from the nomenclature of the product itself, namely dual-desk. He further draws attention to clause (00c) of rule 3 of “Rules for Interpreting Central Excise Tariff” which indicates that if classification cannot be decided by clause (b) of rule 3, then the heading which occurs later should be preferred over the heading which occurs earlier. From this angle learned Advocate submits that dual desk falls under Tariff Heading 94.03. Hence he submits that no demand of duty arises since they had already paid duty in terms of the said classification read with Notification No. 261/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986.

5. Opposing the contentions on this issue, learned JDR Shri R.S. Sangia submits that the principal function of the product is for `seating’ of the school children. Therefore the product would be correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 94.01 relating to seats.

6. We have considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that the product comprises both a bench for two persons and a desk for two persons. It is therefore neither completely a seat nor purely a desk. It is a composite product. In view thereof, prima facie Tariff Headings 94.01 and 94.03 appear to be equally applicable. We therefore have to resort to Rules of Interpretation for the Central Excise Tariff. We observe that essential character to the product can be said to be given by both the seat and the desk. The product is classifiable equally under Tariff Headings 94.01 and 94.03. Therefore applying clause (c) of Rule 3 ibid we hold that the classification of the said goods would be under Tariff Heading 94.03. In view of the above we need not go into the question of demand being barred by time. Hence we allow the appeal of the appellants herein on the question of classification of the product after we set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief be granted to the appellant in view of the above order.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (105) ELT 400 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (030) RLT 0288