G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President

1. Appeal No. E/744/82-D. By a notice dated 18.3.1980 M/s. Telco Ltd. (the appellants before us) were called upon to show cause why excise duty amounting to Rs. 54,458.45 should not be demanded from them on various types of "steel furniture" (which, according to the authorities, fell under Item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - CET) manufactured during 1977-78 and removed without accountal of the production-and without observing the provisions of Central Excise law and why penalty should not be imposed on them. By a letter dated 29.6.1981 the appellants denied the allegations. They contended that all furniture required by them for homes and offices were purchased from outside and that the goods in question were not conventional steel furniture within the meaning of Item No. 40 GET because they were shop floor equipments made of thick gauge metal and designed and built for the use of workers in the course of manufacturing activities. They did not conform to any standard specifications and were not available in the market. In due course, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna, passed an order on 16.7.1982 holding the subject goods to be steel furniture falling under Item No. 40 CET. He ordered that the Assistant Collector should redetermine the duty liability keeping in. view Central Excise Notification No. 33/71, dated 1.4.1971, as amended by Notification No. 181/72, dated 17.3.1972. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500/- on the appellants under Central Excise Rules 173Q(1). TELCO filed an appeal against this order to the Central Board of Excise Customs which has come on transfer to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.

2. At the instance of the Bench, the appellants furnished a write up on each of the articles in dispute. Photographs of the articles have also been filed. The Collector has also furnished his comments thereon through the Departmental Representative.

3. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, for the appellants and Smt. V. Zutshi, S.D.R., for the respondent.

4. The position that emerges on perusal of the record, including the Collector's comments on the write-ups furnished by TELCO is that the disputed items such as steel cabinets, steel tables, steel benches and steel racks are meant for storing equipments, gauges, parts and components, dies etc. or to be used as work tables e.g., welding tables, inspection tables. These items are not of aesthetic or decorative value and are not of the type of items of furniture normally used for furnishing homes, offices, or public and private buildings. In some cases, the articles are fixed to the shop floor. All the items are manufactured to specific designs and requirements for use in the Works. There is provision in some items for fixing them by bolts in view of the heights of the racks and the load they are expected to bear. It is the Collector's submission that these special features or characteristics are not relevant to the issue of classification and do not detract from the point that they are "steel furniture" within the meaning of Item 40, CET. The appellants have also contended that the items are much more costly than ordinary items of furniture.

5. It is the appellants' contention that the special features of these items - (a) made of heavier than usual gauges of metal, (b) lack of mobility, (c) lack of aesthetic value, (d) made to specific designs for use in the factory, and (e) non-availability in the market, would take them out of the category of "steel furniture" as normally understood in commercial parlance and as interpreted by Courts and this Tribunal.

6. It is the Collector's contention, however, that the above features would not take the article out of the category of steel furniture.

7. Several decisions were cited before us in support of the respective views of the appellants and the respondent However, it seems necessa