HARITHA GRAMMER LTD. AND ROLOFORM Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue being common in both the appeals hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants are manufacturers of seats for automobiles which have been classified under chapter heading No. 94.01. In terms of Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 80/90 dated 20,3.1990, the appellants have been granted the benefit of exemption as the said Sl. No. has description "Steel seats and chairs made partly and the condition is that "if designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircrafts". There is no dispute about appellants being granted benefit of exemption. The only dispute is that they have chosen not to avail the benefit of Sl. No. 2 of the notification and to pay duty and avail the modvat credit.

(2.) Revenue has not accepted this plea and have held that they are not liable to pay duty and also not to avail modvat credit which is challenged in these appeals. Appellants further claimed the benefit of Sl. No. 4 of the notification which has a description "Non -wooden Furniture (other than almirahs, cup -boards, book -shelves, show cases, wardrobes, book -cases, lockers, file cabinets, card index files/cabinets, filing trolleys, racks of all kinds and safes)" with the condition that "if such furniture is made wholly of materials other than materials falling within Chapter 44 of the said Schedule." The authorities below have held that the item is not a furniture but automobile seats designed as such and have rejected the claim for benefit of Sl. No. 4. In this regard, Revenue has relied on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment rendered in the case of Jeevan Singh v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1979 ELT J265 which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd., 1989 (44) ELT 247 (T) wherein it has been observed that the furniture as normally understood could be movable pieces and should be bought and sold in the market. It was also observed that seat assembly for tractors cannot be held to be a furniture as it is neither movable nor is a decorator and moreover it is fabricated to perform a special function.

(3.) We have heard Ld. Counsel Shri G. Sampath for the appellants and Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, Ld. SDR for the Revenue.