Classification of fitted steel furniture upheld where items were not shown to be integral parts of the mobile service unit.

Steel tables and steel cupboards fabricated separately and fitted into mobile service units were treated as ordinary iron and steel furniture because the assessee failed to show that they were specially designed as integral components of the unit. The classification under Tariff Item 40 was therefore upheld. Penalty under the Central Excise Rules was also sustained because the goods were separately dutiable articles and the prescribed declaration and duty-payment procedure had not been followed before fitting them into the unit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the steel tables and steel cupboards fabricated by the assessee and fitted into mobile service units were specially designed components of the vehicle or classifiable as iron and steel furniture under Tariff Item 40; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the steel tables and steel cupboards fabricated by the assessee and fitted into mobile service units were specially designed components of the vehicle or classifiable as iron and steel furniture under Tariff Item 40.

Analysis: The assessee failed to establish from the material on record that the items were specially designed to be fitted into the mobile service unit. The pamphlet relied upon did not specifically cover the goods in question, and the cited authorities were found distinguishable on facts. On the evidence available, the articles were treated as ordinary steel furniture and not as parts forming an inseparable component of the mobile unit.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Item 40 was upheld and the contention of the assessee was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was justified.

Analysis: Since the goods were held to be separately dutiable articles of iron and steel furniture and the assessee had not followed the prescribed procedure for declaration and duty payment before fitting them into the unit, the imposition of penalty was sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be justified and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authority was affirmed in full, and the appeal failed on both classification and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods fabricated separately and fitted into a larger unit remain classifiable on their own if they are not shown to be specially designed as integral parts of that unit.

---