Common parlance classification of cigarettes failed where evidence did not show the tobacco tip was a recognised filter.

For tariff classification, cigarettes must answer the accepted commercial and functional understanding of the description, and the Revenue cannot rely on conjecture or the manufacturer's description alone. On the evidence, including the show cause notice, chemical examiner's report, industry specifications and dealer testimony, the tipped tobacco portion was not shown to be a recognised cigarette filter, and the product was not understood in common parlance as a filter cigarette. The proposed higher classification therefore failed, and the related duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cigarettes in question were classifiable as filter cigarettes and, consequently, whether the duty demand, interest and penalty based on such classification were sustainable.

Analysis: The material on record, including the show cause notice, the chemical examiner's report, the industry specifications and the evidence of dealers, did not establish that the tipped tobacco portion constituted a recognised cigarette filter. The accepted filter materials and filtration standards pointed away from tobacco being treated as a suitable filter medium. The trade evidence also showed that the product was not understood in common parlance as a filter cigarette. As classification must conform to the common parlance understanding and the Revenue had not produced acceptable contrary evidence, the proposed classification could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The cigarettes were not filter cigarettes and the duty demand based on that classification was unsustainable. The related interest and penalty also could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification and the consequential fiscal demands were set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification purposes, a product must answer the accepted commercial and functional understanding of the tariff description, and a classification demanding higher duty cannot rest on conjecture or the manufacturer's description alone when the evidence does not support the Revenue's case.

---