Upholstery classification as furniture parts rejected; job-work upholstery fell outside Chapter 94 and the Revenue's demand failed.

Upholstery manufactured on a job-work basis was treated as not constituting a part of furniture for tariff classification merely because it was intended for use with furniture. The CESTAT held that the relevant Chapter Note did not support classification of upholstery as furniture parts under Chapter 94, and by analogy to a mattress cover, the article remained distinct from the furniture itself. Classification under Chapter 39 or Chapter 63, as applicable, was therefore accepted, the Commissioner (Appeals)' classification was sustained, and the Revenue's proposed duty demand did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether upholstery manufactured on job-work basis is classifiable as parts of furniture under Chapter 94, or as other made up articles under Chapters 39 or 63.

Analysis: The goods were upholstery made on job-work basis. The Chapter Note relied upon did not support the proposition that upholstery of furniture becomes a part of furniture. By analogy, as a mattress cover is not treated as part of a mattress, upholstery of furniture was held not to be a part of furniture for classification purposes.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Chapter 94 as parts of furniture. Classification under Chapter 39 or Chapter 63, as applicable, was accepted and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained and the duty demand proposed by the Revenue did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Upholstery manufactured on job work basis does not, merely because it is intended for furniture, become a part of furniture for tariff classification unless the tariff note expressly so provides.

---