of Central Excise, New
Delhi Vs. Louis
Shoppe & Anr  INSC 378 (12 March 1996)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Ahmad Saghir S. (J)
1996 SCC (3) 445 JT 1996 (6) 161 1996 SCALE (2)829
O R D
counsel for both the parties at this stage itseIf.
question is whether wooden furniture by itself can be treated as
"handicrafts" within the meaning of Notification No.76 of 1986 dated February 10, 1986? It must be said straightaway that
furniture as such does not qualify as handicrafts. It may be characterised as
"handicrafts" if the following tests are satisified:
It must be predominantly made by hand. It does not matter if some machinery is
also used in the process.
must be graced with visual appeal in the nature of ornamentation or in-lay work
or some similar work lending it an element of artistic improvement.
ornamentation must be of a substantial nature and not a mere pretence."
Whenever the above question arises, the authorities shall examine the matter
from the above stand-point and pass orders accordingly.
above principles shall apply to all pending matters and to all matters arising
hereinafter. This direction we are making because it appears that the view
taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal - which is clearly not in
accordance with the tests/principles laid down by us herein appears to have
been followed by the Tribunal since 1989 at least. The cases concerned herein
shall not be re-opened in view of the above principles.
appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
of this Order may be sent to the Registrar, CEGAT and he may circulate the same
to all the Benches.
Pages: 1 2