1984 (10) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enged in this appeal filed by the Union of India, the Collector and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona. 2. The respondent-Company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the levy of excise duty by the authorities concerned on the Operation Tables manufactured by the respondent-Company and also X-ray Protective Screens manufactured by the respondent-Company. The authorities concerned had proceeded to hold that these items were "steel furniture" within the meaning of Item No. 40 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, therefore, excise duty was leviable on these two items. 3. The material facts have been fully and correctly set o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged before us. In our view, the reasons stated by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that Operation Tables are not furniture and, therefore, they do not come within Item No. 40 in the First Schedule are cogent and sound and we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court for the reasons recorded in its judgment. As we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court and the reasons recorded in the judgment in support of the view, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. It appears that when the special leave petition was admitted by this Court, this Court in its order has recorded that it will be open to the respondent in the event of the respondent succeeding in the appeal to claim ....