Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

The issue in the appeal relates to classification of the goods which are described as kitchen table, work tables, service counters and SS stand. These are sought to be classified by the Revenue under heading 94.03 as against heading 73.23 claimed by the assessee. The learned CCE (A) classified the goods under heading 73.23 as against 94.03 held by the original authority. For convenience of reference, the competing items are reproduced below :

2. The CCE (A) has also referred in this connection to HSN notes under which the scope of tariff heading 73.23 has been elaborated. The note as taken note of the CCE (A) is reproduced below :

"Table, kitchen or other house hold articles and parts thereof, or iron or steel, iron or steel wool, pot scouring and scouring or polishing pads, gloves and the like of iron or steel"

The lower appellate authority has taken note of the decision of the Tribunal in the context of the erstwhile item No. 40 as set in this regard as under :

The Hon. Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1988 (37) ELT 432 (Trib.) ruled that steel furniture steel cabinets, steel tables, steel benches, steel racks and steel tool holders not meant for use or decoration in dwelling houses, place of business or public or private buildings but specially designed for use in works, and heavier in weight, made of thicker metal and costlier, not qualifying to be classified as steel furniture under item 40 of the C.E.T. The ratio of the Hon. Tribunal's decision is correctly applicable to the facts of the present case.

B. The Hon. Tribunal in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1988 (37) ELT 375 (Trib.) also ruled that such goods are not commonly known as "furniture" as the same are not bought and sold in the market as "furniture". The said ruling of the Hon. Tribunal is also applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the goods involved are : (1) kitchen tables, (2) work tables, (3) service counters, and (4) SS Stand with undershelf. They are not popularly known as "furniture". Commercially also, such goods are not bought and sold as furniture. The various affidavits filed and the various purchase orders and invoice available on record vouchsafe the fact that the disputed goods are not furniture as commonly known and understood. Neither are they known commercially also as furniture. Therefore, the classification of the disputed goods under the tariff sub-heading 9403 is not sustainable in law. Such goods, as has been discussed in the preceding paras, are rightly classifiable under sub-heading 7323. Even the HSN, as stated in the preceding paras also supports the classification of the disputed goods under sub-heading 7323.

and has come to the conclusion that the goods will fall under heading 73.23.

3. The Revenue has urged as under in the grounds of appeal .

The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore has failed to note that as per Note 2 to Chapter articles referred to in heading No. 9403 are to be classified if they are designed for placing on the floor or ground who would clearly apply to the impugned items whereas chapter 7323 covers articles for tables, kitchen or other household articles of Iron and Steel. The explanatory notes to the HSN at page 1578 extends the coverage of heading 9403 to "furniture for special use" which also have application in hotels and private dwellings.

3. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (37) ELT 375, wherein the decision was primarily with regard to classification of cabinets, steel tables, ste