| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/5018 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Decided On | Jun-20-1989 |
| Reported in | (1990)LC254Tri(Delhi) |
| Appellant | Madras Radiators and Pressings |
| Respondent | Collector of C. Ex. |
2. The appellants Company had filed a classification list No. 9/81-82 classifying the steel seat assembly for tractors under Tariff Item 68 (Motor Vehicles parts not otherwise specified) and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 169/79, dated 19-4-1979. This classification list was approved and the steel seat assembly for tractors were being cleared accordingly.
3. The appellants filed a revised classification list (supplemental to the above referred to classification list) classifying the "steel seat assembly for tractor" under Tariff Item No. 40 (Steel furniture and parts thereof) and also claimed exemption for the same, as per the provision of Notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968. The list was provisionally approved on 29-4-1983, but finally it was not approved. A show cause notice dated 25-8-83, was issued asking as to why the item should not be classified under Tariff Item 68 .(Motor Vehicle parts not otherwise specified) and why the differential duty should not be demanded on the steel seat assembly for clearance effected during the period 29-4-1983 to date i.e. 21-11-1983. The contentions of the appellants were rejected both by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals).
4. Sh R.L. Deendayal, Administrative Officer of the appellant company appeared and argued the case. He submitted that notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968 exempts the steel seats designed for automobiles and hence they are entitled for the said benefit of notification and he further argued that the item steel seats of tractors are covered under Tariff Item 40 which exempts seats manufactured by them. He further submitted that the steel seats of tractors cannot be classified under Tariff Item 68 as had been done by the lower authorities. He submitted that the steel seat is concave shaped and not a moulded one, without legs but with a link hinge and a bracket, that Tariff Item 40 covers steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel whether in assembled or in unassembled condition and that exemption Notification No. 91/68-CE has been issued whereby steel seats falling under Tariff Item 40 and designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircrafts are wholly exempt from duty. The steel seat assembly is designed, manufactured and used on a tractor for the convenient seating of the operator and hence the tractor seat assembly is an item used for the convenient accommodation of a human being. The tractor seat, therefore, is to He classifiable under Tariff item 40 and also entitled for exemption under Notification No. 91/68-CE. He further contended that tractor is a motor vehicle and also an automobile and the seats designed for use in automobiles are wholly exempted under Tariff Item 40 and since seats manufactured by them are to be used only in tractors, the question of classifying them under Tariff Item 68 does not arise.
5. Sh. L.C. Chakraborthy, learned Departmental Representative, vehemently argued the case for Revenue and submitted that the tractor is not a motor vehicle or an automobile and they cannot come under item 40 or item 34 and hence the tractor seats are correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The appellants cannot claim the benefit of notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968 as the benefit is available only if the item was to fall under Tariff Item 40. As the item steel seat of tractor is classifiable under Tariff Item 68, it is not entitled for benefit of exemption of Notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968.
6. To substantiate his point, he relied upon the definition of the word "Automobile" as found in the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Second Edition appearing on page 129.
"Automobile (MECH. ENG.) - A four-wheeled trackless, self propelled vehicle for land transportation of as many as eight people. Also known as Car" 7. He further relied upon the citations referred to in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore [1988 (37) ELT 375]; Tata Engg. & Locomotive v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (37) ELT 432 (Tribunal)]; Elpro International Ltd. and Ors. v.Joint Secy., Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance 8. We have heard the submissions of both sides, carefully perused the records and have fianally come to the conclusions as drawn herein below. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the "steel seats" manufactured by the appellants for tractors fall under Tariff Item 40 or under Tariff Item 68 and as to whether they are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968.
9. Sh. L.C. Chakraborthy had relied upon the definition of automobile as appearing on page 129 of the dictionary (referred to supra). Oil the same page 129 of the said Dictionary the word "Automotive Vehicle" (MECH ENG) is defined as - "A self propelled vehicle or machine for land transportation of people or commodities or removing materials, such as passenger car, bus, truck, motorcycle, tractor, aeroplane, motor boat or earth mover." "Tractor (MECH. ENG.) An automotive vehicle having four wheels or a caterpiller tread used for pulling agricultural or construction implements 2. The front pulling section of a semitrailer. Also known as truck-tractor." Looking into these definitions, it is clear that tractor is an automobile and the contention of Sh. L.C. Chakraborthy that the tractor is not an automobile, has to be rejected.
"Steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled condition and parts of such steel furniture (but excluding slotted angles and channels made of steel)"All other goods not elsewhere specified but excluding -(a) alcohol, all sorts, including alcoholic liquors for Ten percent ad human consumption; valorem(b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and nar-cotics; and(c) dutiable goods as defined in Section 2(c) of theMedicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act,1955 (16 of 1955)." "Motor vehicles and tractors including trailers - * * *II. Tractors, including agricultural tractors Fifteen per cent ad valorem Exemption to steel seats and chairs - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts with effect from the 1st March, 1968, steel seats and chairs falling under item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircrafts, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon." 12. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the prayer of the appellants to classify the item steel seat of a tractor under Tariff Item 40 on the ground that the seat of the tractor is a moulded one, like bucket seat with a link hinge and a bracket seat and by itself the seat cannot be used as such and hence the seat will not be classifiable as an item of steel furniture falling under Tariff Item 40. The learned Collector (Appeals) had also rejected the prayer on similar grounds and had further held that furniture is an item used for the comfort or convenience of a human being either in the house or place of business.
The Collector further held that the tractor assembly seat cannot be considered as a furniture and not classifiable under Tariff Item 40.
The learned Collector had also relied upon several citations under Tariff Item 40 to reject the pleas of the appellants.
13. The appellants' representative contended that Notification No.91/68, dated 30-4-1968 specifically exempts steel seat designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircraft from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. It is obvious that the notification No. 91/68 referred to Tariff Item 40 only. If it were not so then the items would not have been covered to grant exemption.
14. Sh. L.C. Chakraborthy, Departmental Representative, had submitted that tractor is not an automobile and hence the benefit of Notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968 did not refer to tractors. He had relied upon the dictionary meaning of the word automobile. The very dictionary which he relied upon on the very same page 129 had defined 'automotive vehicle' to include tractor also and hence we have rejected the contention of Sh. L.C. Chakraborthy that tractor is not an automobile.
Further it is well settled that words used in common parlance and as ordinarily understood has to be relied upon than dictionary meaning. It is well understood that tractor is also an automobile. Sh. L.C.Chakraborthy had further submitted that the word motor vehicle does not mean tractor as a distinction is made in Tariff Item 34 when it separately refers to motor vehicle, tractor including agricultural tractor and trailers.
15. The question here is as to whether the steel seat assembly can be brought under Tariff Item 40 as an item of furniture. The ratio in the cases referred to by the Collector in the case of Unique Industries v.Supdt. of Central Excise [1982 (10) ELT 349 (P&H)]; Materials Handling Engg. Company v. M.G. Waknis, Supdt. of Central Excise [1980 (6) ELT 231]; Electronics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1980 (6) ELT 350]; and Jiwan Singh v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1979 (4) ELT J-265], refers to classification of spring balances weighing materials, trolleys used for conveying certain articles, metal trolley type hand used for keeping an air cooler. The items referred to in these citations has no bearing to steel seat assembly of tractor but however, these throw light on this aspect of the matter as to what the furniture is for inclusion under Item 40.In Tata Engg. & Locomotive v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1988 (37) ELT 432], the Tribunal examined the items that could be brought under item 40 in the light of the definitions of the term 'furniture'. It has laid down a test that an article can be furniture if (i) it is an article of convenience or decoration (ii) is used for either purposes in the house or in office or a public building or in industrial estate (iii) is not fabricated to specifically perform special functions and (iv) is not so constructed as to be not usable in the line of ordinary furniture as found in the house, office, etc.
Further the Tribunal has held that furniture as commonly understood would be moveable pieces.In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (37) ELT 375, the test of an item as a furniture, is further elaborated in the light of all the rulings and has finally concluded that furniture should be brought and sold in market. Applying these tests, we cannot hold the steel seat assembly for tractor to be a furniture. It is not a piece of decoration or aesthetic or a decoration value. Neither it is moveable nor bought and sold in market. It is fabricated and meant to specially perform special function. Although notification No. 91/68, dated 30-4-1968 exempts steel seats and chairs falling under item 40 which are designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircrafts but as the steel seat assembly does not qualify to become a furniture, it cannot fall under item 40 and hence this notification is not applicable to steel seat of tractor manufactured by appellants.
18. The lower authorities were justified in rejecting the contention of the appellants to grant exemption under this notification. Hence, the appeal is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed.
19. In the case of Jiwan Singh And Sons and Anr. v. Senior Superintendent of 'Central Excise, Jullundur and Anr. (Supra), the question that came up before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana was whether chairs fixed or screwed to buses could be considered as "furniture" within the meaning of Central Excise Tariff Item 40. It was held that such seats have to be considered as fixtures of the vehicles rather than as "furniture" and that therefore they were not classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 40. In the judgment of this Bench written by me in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1988 (37) E.L.T. 375 the meaning of steel furniture for purposes of classification under Central Excise Tariff has been gone into at some length keeping in view the various land mark decisions on this subject. The view taken was further supported in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise (Supra). In accordance with the view elaborated in these two judgments and, agreeing with the discussions of Brother Peeran, I concur and dismiss this appeal.