COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHIversusLOUIS SHOPPE AND ANR.

              COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI                                 A
                                          v.
                            LOUIS SHOPPE AND ANR.

                                  MARCH 12, 1996

            [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHM..\D, JJ.]                           B

           Excise-Notificatio11 No. 76 of 1986 dated 10.2.1986-'Handicrafts'-
     What are-Test for determination of handicrafts laid dowit-'Wooden
     fumiture'-<:an be characterised as handicrafts only if satisfies the require-
     ments laid dow11--View taken ill order under appeal held not in accordance      C
Y.   with test laid dow11 /Jy Supreme Court-Direction to !'PP/y prospectively the
     principles laid down i11 all pe11ding matters.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9217-18
     of 1995.
                                                                                     D
           From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.94 of the Central Excise
     Customs and Gold (Control} Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in F.O.No.
     451-52 of 1994-D.

          V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, V.K Verma, M. Gauri
     Shankar Murthy for the Appellant.                                               E
          Soli J. Sorabjee and Dushyant Dave, Raju Ramachandran, N. Mullik,
     Manoj Prasad, C.K. Shastri, Kailash Vasdev for the Respondents.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                     F
           Heard Counsel for both the parties at this stage itself.

           The 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     G
     following tests are satisified :

              "(1} It must be predominantly made hy hand. It does not matter if
              some machinery is also used in the process.

              (2) It must be graced with visual appeal in the nature of              H·
                                     293
    294                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A            ornamentation or in-lay work or some similar work lending it an
             element of artistic improvement. Such 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.
B
           The above principles shall apply to all pending matters and to all
    matters arising hereinafter. This direction we are making because it ap-
    pears that the view taken by the Tribunal in the order under appeal - which
    is clearly not in accordance with the test/principles laid down by us herein
C   - 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.

          The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

          A copy of this Order may be sent to the Registrar, CEGAT and he
D may circulate the same to all the Benches.
    T.N.A.                                                Appeals disposed of.