Dried prawns retain their identity as prawns when preservation does not change the essential commodity character.

Dried prawns did not lose their identity as prawns merely because they were sun-dried and preserved in the traditional manner. The court treated drying as a method of preservation, not a transformation into a different commodity, and held that the article continued to fall within the notified expression "prawn" under the relevant notification. On that basis, the commodity was covered by the exemption/notification, and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether "prawn pulp" sold by the petitioner fell within the expression "prawn" in Notification No. HI-17041/57/RD-1 dated 1st November, 1958.

Analysis: The only question was whether the goods, though cured by sun-drying, had lost their character as prawns. The record did not show that the article was anything other than prawns preserved in the traditional manner. Drying was treated as a method of preservation and not as a transformation into a different commodity. On that basis, prawns after drying continued to answer the description "prawn" in the notification.

Conclusion: The article remained prawn for the purpose of the notification, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the notified expression covered dried prawns, including the commodity in question.

Ratio Decidendi: A commodity does not cease to be a notified item merely because it has been preserved by drying if its essential identity remains unchanged.

---