Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. D.M. Vora and Co. and Chetan

Commissioner of Central Excise vs D.M. Vora and Co. and Chetan

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 14, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39356

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39356
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A T Moheb
Decided On: Jun 14, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

D.M. Vora and Co. and Chetan

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the revenue is in appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals). in the impugned order of commissioner held that the goods namely upholstery, manufactured on job work basis are not chargeable to duty under chapter heading 94 of the schedule as an item of furniture even when are consider the chapter note under chapter 94. he held that such upholstery manufactured on job work basis is correctly classifiable as other made up articles falling under chapter 39 if made from plastic material of under chapter 63 if made from fabrics.2. revenue contends that the upholstery manufactured by the respondents has to be considered as parts of furniture under chapter 94 as per the chapter note set out.3. none appeared for the respondents. we have heard the learned s.d.r.and perused the record.4. what is being manufactured by the respondents are upholstery on job work basis. even the chapter note relied upon by the revenue does not suggest that upholstery of furniture becomes part of furniture. just of cover of mattress doesn't become the part of a mattress, upholstery of furniture cannot be called a part of furniture. the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order of Commissioner held that the goods namely upholstery, manufactured on job work basis are not chargeable to duty under Chapter heading 94 of the Schedule as an item of furniture even when are consider the Chapter Note under Chapter 94. He held that such upholstery manufactured on job work basis is correctly classifiable as other made up articles falling under Chapter 39 if made from plastic material of under Chapter 63 if made from fabrics.

2. Revenue contends that the upholstery manufactured by the respondents has to be considered as parts of furniture under Chapter 94 as per the Chapter Note set out.

3. None appeared for the respondents. We have heard the learned S.D.R.and perused the record.

4. What is being manufactured by the respondents are upholstery on job work basis. Even the Chapter Note relied upon by the Revenue does not suggest that upholstery of furniture becomes part of furniture. Just of cover of mattress doesn't become the part of a mattress, upholstery of furniture cannot be called a part of furniture. The appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs D.M. Vora and Co. and Chetan Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A T Moheb