Common parlance test for product classification: "Robin Blue" was not soap, and a new colour plea was refused.

Under the common parlance test, an article is classifiable as soap only if it performs the ordinary function of a cleaning agent. Applying that principle, the court accepted the concurrent finding that "Robin Blue" was used only to add brightness to white clothes and did not clean clothes, so it was not soap under entry 48 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The alternative plea that it was a colour under entry 45 was not entertained because it had not been raised before the departmental authorities or the Tribunal and lacked a factual foundation, and revision could interfere only on a question of law wrongly decided or not decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether "Robin Blue" is a soap falling under entry 48 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and whether it could be treated as a colour under entry 45 when that contention had not been raised before the departmental authorities or the Tribunal.

Analysis: The article was not shown to perform the ordinary function associated with soap. It did not clean clothes but was used only to add brightness to white clothes. On the common parlance test, an article can be treated as soap only if it answers to the ordinary understanding of that commodity as a cleaning agent. The Court therefore accepted the concurrent view of the authorities that "Robin Blue" was not a soap. The alternative contention that it was a colour was not permitted to be raised for the first time in revision, since there was no factual foundation on the nature and components of the goods, and revision under section 22 permits interference only where a question of law has been wrongly decided or not decided by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: "Robin Blue" was not classifiable as soap under entry 48, and the new contention based on entry 45 was not entertained.

---