Ordinary commercial meaning governs classification of glass containers as bottles, and misdescription in invoices does not create estoppel.

Glass containers were classified by their ordinary commercial meaning because the Act, rules and notification did not define "bottle". Containers fitted with screw tops or caps and used for articles such as vaseline, honey and face creams were held to be bottles, the absence of a narrow neck not being decisive, and their turnover was therefore exempt from tax as bottles rather than glassware. The use of the word "jar" in some sale bills did not change the true character of the goods or create estoppel, as no inconsistent taxable treatment was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the glass containers manufactured and sold by the assessee were bottles within the ordinary meaning of that term, and therefore exempt from tax under the relevant notification; (ii) whether the assessee was estopped from claiming the goods to be bottles because some sale bills described them as jars.

Issue (i): Whether the glass containers manufactured and sold by the assessee were bottles within the ordinary meaning of that term, and therefore exempt from tax under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The expression "bottle" was not defined in the Act, the Rules, or the notification, so the goods had to be identified according to their common parlance meaning. The containers were glass vessels fitted for a screw top or cap and were used for storing articles such as vaseline, honey, and face creams. A narrow neck was not an essential feature of a bottle in present-day usage. The distinguishing feature from a jar was the arrangement for a stopper or cap, and the goods in question answered that description.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as bottles and were not liable to be taxed as glassware.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was estopped from claiming the goods to be bottles because some sale bills described them as jars.

Analysis: The mere use of the description "jar" in some sale bills did not alter the true character of the goods. The taxing treatment adopted by the assessee showed that it had not acted on the footing that the goods were glassware taxable at the higher rate, and no inconsistent position was established that could give rise to estoppel.

Conclusion: The assessee was not estopped from contending that the goods were bottles.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and the turnover of the goods in question was held to be exempt as bottles.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff or notification does not define a commodity, its classification must be determined by its ordinary commercial meaning, and a party is not estopped from asserting the true character of the goods merely because a different descriptive label was used in some documents.

---