TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h as strips, corner plates, cladding sheets and partition plates, metal shoes etc. which are capable of being used for assembly of steel furniture should not be classified under item 40 CET. On receipt of their reply and after adjudication, the Assistant Collector under his order dated 2-12-1982 held that excepting slotted angles and channels, the other articles manufactured by the Company are parts of steel furniture and are classifiable under item 40 CET. On appeal there from the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras set aside the said order holding that these articles cannot be identified as parts of steel furniture and are therefore not classifiable under item 40. The Collector of Central Excise, Cochin has preferred the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured and sold to customers for purpose of erection of industrial storage counters which are erected on spot in the customer's premises, the height thereof often going upto the ceiling and also for purpose of fabrication of ladders, cat walks, platforms, etc. in connection with the erection of such storage counters and these products were, therefore, not parts of steel furniture. 4.  As mentioned earlier, the Collector in his grounds of appeal refers to certain letters. The first of these is the letter from M/s. ELGI Equipment Ltd. in which they state that the items purchased by them from M/s. New Chelur Agencies (who were the selling agents for the respondents) were for purposes of fitting racks in their stores. The second letter is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Chandan Metal Products (P) Ltd. (1969 Vol. 23 STC 29) that shelving racks are steel furniture. The mere fact that they are of huge size would not, it appears to us, make any difference. 6.  The learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Jiwan Singh & Sons (1972 Tax Law Reporter 427). That case dealt with seats made of wood and steel, fitted in bodies for passenger buses. The revenue contended that such seats would be furniture. The High Court held against the same observing that these seats are fabricated as part of the bus bodies at the time of fabrication of the bus bodies and the fact that these chairs, if removed from the buses, could be used as fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e classification of the parts. 9.  The learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the decision of the Govt. of India in the case of Ajay Enterprises (P) Ltd. reported in 1978 E.L.T.-J 144, The decision was to the effect that Cinema Chairs would not be steel furniture falling under item 40. But that was on the basis that the said chasis were not moveable, and further were one legged units being Fixed to the floor and also fixed to the adjacent seats. The Govt. observed that the seats were therefore not moveable, evidently because if they are not fixed to the adjacent seats or to the ground they cannot even stand up and could not therefore be used as moveable furniture. So far as storage racks are concerned may be they are ....