- (1.) THE petitioners are two firms carrying on the business of building bodies for passenger buses. These bodies are fitted with seats made of wood and steel. With effect from March 1, 1968 excise duty was levied on "steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled condition. " This item was inserted as Item 40 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On April 30, 1968, the Government exempted from the payment of duty "steel seats and chairs designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and aircrafts", so that for two months from March 1, 1968 to April 29, 1968, the petitioners were held liable to pay excise duty on the seats of buses manufactured out of steel. The petitioners, through their Association, made representation to the Collector of Central Excise to the effect that the seats manufactured by them and fitted in the buses were not furniture but were fixtures. The representation was turned down and it was held that they were furniture and the petitioners should take out licence under the said Act. The petition was then filed challenging the decision of the Collector Central Excise.
(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed in which two preliminary objections have been taken that is, a joint petition on behalf of two dealers is not competent as separate notices were issued to each of them. The second objection is that the petitioners should have availed of the statutory remedy so that the departmental authorities could have determined on facts whether the seats fitted in the bodies of buses amount to furniture or not as the word used in Item 40 connotes. On merits it has been submitted that the chairs fixed or screwed to the bodies of buses remain furniture and do not become fixtures as they can be removed from the bodies of buses and used elsewhere as furniture.
(3.) THERE is force in the first preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents and realising the force of that objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined this petition only to petitioner No. 2-This order will, therefore, be in respect of petitioner No. 2 only.;