Judgment:
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classifying Doctors' cases manufactured by the assessees/respondents herein under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff -- the Revenue seeks classification of this item under Tariff Item 48A which reads as under: 2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned Dr submits that the item in question is nothing but a sort or type of brief case. There is no difference in appearance between any briefcase and the item in dispute, although inside the briefcase, there may be special compartments for keeping equipment such as Blood Pressure equipments, syringes etc. He submits that these being travel goods; that could be carried from place to place, they are covered by Tariff Item 48A which is a specific entry and not by Tariff Item 68 which is a residuary entry, which can be applied only if no other item covers a product. He also submits that the fittings in the doctors' case are detachable and once they are removed, even from inside, it looks the same. He, therefore, submits that the order of the Collector (Appeals) has to be set aside and the item classified under Tariff Item 48.
3. On the other hand, Shri J.S. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, draws our attention to the detailed order passed by the lower Appellate authority and in particular, to his acceptance of the contention of the respondent-manufactures that there is a clear difference and distinction between a brief case and a doctor's case, the only common feature common being that they look the same from outside. The Collector (Appeals) has held that commercially the two items namely the briefcases and doctors' cases are not understood in common parlance as brief cases. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that there is nothing to warrant interfering with the finding arrived at by the lower authority and classification under TI 68 be upheld.4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We had occasion during the course of hearing, to see a sample of the disptued item. We agree with the learned DR that the item from outside looks like a brief case. However a doctor's case contains cavities inside wherein different types of fittings/folders are placed for keeping various types of medical equipment. The structure is moulded in such a way that it cannot be removed or separated. The Collector (Appeals) has dealt with the different items in great detail in the order from para 4 onwards. He has referred to various dictionary meanings of 'brief case' and has held that the doctor's cases are specially designed for doctors only and the structure and design and the medical apparatus and contens and the class of customers are all different between these products. The price factor which distinguishes doctor's cases from briefcases, has also been noted by him in his order. There is nothing to show that in commercial or trade understanding, doctor's cases are recognised or regarded as briefcases.
We agree with the learned Counsel that the doctor's cases are not of the type or class covered under TI 48 and are rightly held under TI 68.
In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
5. I observe that the Tariff Item 48A of the old tariff covered 'travel goods' of only specified types as apparent from the phrase "the following namely". Of course, the item's name include briefcase and vanity cases of 'all sorts'. Therefore, even if it is interpreted that brief cases of all sorts are covered, a question arises whether the item in question could be considered as a type of brief cases. In this connection, I find that in "The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language - Encyclopedic Edition", the 'brief-case' has been described as under:-- Brief-case. A leather portfolio for carrying briefs, commercial papers, manuscripts etc.
Although these days, the brief cases of material other than leather including synthetic type are commonly available in the market, the basic idea remains that they must be so designed and intended for carrying mainly papers, memos, manuscripts, letters, etc.
6. The item in question is so designed and constructed as to be meant for carrying various types of medical equipments and not papers or briefs or other documents. Therefore, it could not be considered as a variety or type of brief case inspire of its looks. The case law referred to by both the sides is, therefore, not relevant inasmuch as the discussion of all sorts would have been relevant only if it could be shown that the item was a type or variety of brief case. The discussion on 'travel goods' is also required to be confined inasmuch as only specified type of travel goods are covered. A doctor's case although it may be carried by him would hardly qualify as travel goods because the type of travel goods covered by Item 48 are suit cases, vanity bags and vanity cases and normally the doctor's case is even otherwise carried by the doctor from the dispensary to home for visiting patients and does not come under the normal understanding of travel goods. Therefore, whichever way we may look at it, the item is neither a brief case as commonly understood nor does it fall in the category of travel goods. In the circumstances, it has to be necessarily consigned to the residuary entry of TI 68. We have, therefore, no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The department's appeal is, therefore, dismissed, as already announced in the open Court.