ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Appeal No. E/1794/91-Bl is filed by the party M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd., on the issue of classification of the product ‘Fire Resistant Filing Cabinet’ manufactured by them since the issue was not decided in their favour as per impugned order No. 4/91 dated 5-2-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi on the very issue, the Department also filed appeal Nos. E/1714/92-B1 and E/3097/92-B1. Hence these three appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The point to be considered in these three appeals is whether ‘Fire Resistant Filing Cabinet’ is classifiable under Tariff Item 8304.00 as claimed by the party or under 8303.00 as per the Department.
3. For the sake of ready reference the relevant tariff entries are reproduced as under:
8303.00 Armoured or reinforced safes, Rate of duty 35%
strong boxes and doors and safe
deposit lockers for strong rooms,
cash or deed boxes and the like, of
base metal.
8304.00 Filing cabinets, card-index Rate of duty 25%
cabinets, paper rests, paper trays,
pen trays, office-stamp stand and
similar office or desk equipment, of
base metal, other than office
furniture of Heading No. 94.03.
4. We have heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Savita Sharma, learned Advocate for the party and the Department was duly represented by Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR in all these cases.
5. Shri Chandrasekharan while narrating the events submitted that the party has filed classification list with effect from 20-3-1990 classifying the goods under Heading 8304.00. The concerned Assistant Collector passed an order classifying the item in question under sub-heading 8303.00. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) as per his order dated 8-11-1990 upheld the contention of the assessee and, accordingly, goods were classified under sub-heading 8304.00. Against the said order the appeal was filed by the Department before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed as time-barred since the appeal was filed beyond time. Since then the Collector (Appeals) is holding the same view that Fire Resistant Filing Cabinet is classifiable under sub-heading 8304.00 as can be seen from the impugned orders dated 20-1-1992 and 25-3-1992 in appeal Nos. E/1714/92 and E/3097/92 against which the Department has come before the Tribunal. But the Executive Collector is of the different view holding that the item in question is classifiable under Heading 8303 as per impugned order No. 4/91 dated 5-2-1991 against which the party has come in appeal.
6. While arguing for the party Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that Fire Resistant Filing Cabinet cannot be classifiable under 8303 as they are not safes as described in 8303. He drew our attention to page 83A of paper book to show the difference between features & specifications of safes and fire resistant filing cabinet. He said that fire resistant filing cabinet is made from steel sheet approximately 1 mm thickness as against 1.5mm thickness made of special steel plates in case of safes and safes are reinforced with wire…melting and the intervening space is filled with heat resistant material and fire resistant chemicals to provide resistant. There is no reinforced barrier material in the case of fire resistant filing cabinets. Total body will have thickness of 100mm in the case of safes but total body thickness is only 42mm in case of fire resistant filing cabinets. He contended that armoured or reinforced safes as alleged by the Department to be classifiable under 8303 but they are filing cabinets and are appropriately classifiable under 8304. He said that this issue was already considered by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Steelage Industries Ltd., Bombay, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 204 in favour of the party and further the same ratio has been followed in subsequent case in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Steelage Industries Ltd., reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 78. He submitted that while referring to I.S.I. specification it was observed in the aforesaid decision that minimum thickness of the outer plates prescribed by I.S.I. for safes is 5mm. Thickness of the outer plates used for fire safe Record Cabinet is 2.5mm. Whereas in the present case it is only 1 mm thickness. Since item in question falls much short of minimum requirement for the safes as minimum thickness of inner plates as well as outer plates and whereas the I.S.I. specifications for safes require a drill-proof layer of minimum 3.15mm thickness over the lock, the aforesaid cabinet is not designed to withstand burglary and it is neither drill-proof nor even drill-resistant and it does not have any drill-resisting layer or cover whatever over the lock or on any part of the entire cabinet. He said that in the instant case the party is not manufacturing the safes but only fire resistant cabinets and not only in nature and description the item in question differs from the safe and the value of the item is very less compared to the safes manufactured by the Steelage Industries and Godrej Company. Strongly relying upon the ratio of decision in case of Steelage Industries (supra) he said that fire resistant filing cabinets are not classifiable under 8303 on the ground that it is not ordinary steel cabinets/cupboard or reinforced safes and nevertheless it falls short of minimum requirement of a safe as understood in the trade and as set out in the I.S.I. specifications.
7. Shri M.S. Arora while countering the arguments submitted that although the point at issue was decided in favour of the party in the case of Steelage Industries Ltd., (supra) but nevertheless it is distinguishable in view of the fact that no affidavit from customers were filed in this case, as regards the nature of the item and to show that it is not designed for storage of cash, jewellery and other valuables and their buyers used it only for keeping more important files and documents as it was done in that case. Further he said that observations made in that case that its lock is not burglary resistant and over-ruling of I.S.I. specification require to be reconsidered to determine the point at issue in this case. He contended that these items are mostly purchased from banks and institutions for the purpose of keeping valuable documents for safety and documents are more valuable than even cash, gold and jewellery etc. In view of this fact that these items have to be considered as ‘safes’. He also said that safes and cabinets are interchangeable terms and used in that sense and furthermore since it is not an ordinary filing cabinet it cannot be classifiable under Heading 8304. He argued that point at issue in this case is whether the item in question is more akin to safes as described under Heading 8303 or to cabinet as envisaged under Heading 8304. It was contended by him that since it is more akin to safes and more appropriately it is classifiable as armoured safes as described under Heading 8303.
8. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both sides with reference to the facts of the case and on perusal of the records including citation, we are of the view that this issue was squarely covered in the case of Steelage Industries Limited as cited above. We are not convinced with the argument of the Departmental Representative that no affidavits were filed in this case as regards nature and design of the product and this may be different as described in the case of Steelage Industries Ltd. We find that since beginning nature and description of the product is not in dispute and furthermore it has not been controverted by the Department to show that they are different. Findings given in the aforesaid decision as regards to the similar nature and description of the product itself is a proof as it was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the party.
9. The observations made in the aforesaid decision are appropriate in the present context and the relevant portion is reproduced as under :
“Though the Firesafe Record Cabinet manufactured by the respondents is not an ordinary steel cupboard, it nevertheless falls far short of the minimum requirements of a safe as understood in the trade and as set out in the ISI specification. Its structure is not like that of safe nor is its body-strength near anywhere that of a safe. The thickness of its plates is practically half of those of a safe. It has no safeguard plate and drill-proof layer. Its lock is not burglary resistant. It is neither designed nor recognised in the trade as a safe.”
10. Concurring with the above view and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we hold that these are filing cabinets and, accordingly, they are classifiable under sub-heading 8304.00 as claimed by the party. Since we are deciding the main issue of classification in favour of the party, we do not feel it necessary to go into other issues raised by both sides and also time-bar issue taken by the learned counsel for the party during the course of arguments relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 (S.C.) and Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)].
11. These three cases are disposed of in the above terms.