https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115479 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. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2012 18:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115479 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115479