Specific tariff entry prevails over general classification where refrigerant goods have a recognised commercial identity.

Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22 were treated as refrigeration materials rather than general gases because they were used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The specific entry for refrigeration goods in the First Schedule prevailed over the general entry for gases. Their classification could not vary according to the different end uses chosen by individual purchasers, since goods with a recognised commercial identity are classified by their nature and specific tariff entry, not by subsequent use. The revision on classification was therefore rejected and the assessment under entry 2 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22 were classifiable under entry 2 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as refrigeration materials or under entry 118 as gases. (ii) Whether the same goods could be taxed under different entries depending on the use to which the purchaser put them.

Issue (i): Whether Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22 were classifiable under entry 2 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as refrigeration materials or under entry 118 as gases.

Analysis: The goods were shown to be refrigerants used in industrial and commercial refrigeration, air-conditioning and related systems. Entry 2 specifically covered refrigeration plants and refrigeration materials, including polystyrene foam. Since the products were understood in commercial parlance as refrigeration materials, the specific entry for refrigeration goods applied. Entry 118 was a general entry for gases and could not displace the specific entry.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly held to fall under entry 2, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the same goods could be taxed under different entries depending on the use to which the purchaser put them.

Analysis: The nature of the goods could not be determined by the varying uses to which different purchasers might put them. The user test was not decisive for classification where the goods had a recognised commercial identity and a specific tariff entry. A commodity falling within a special entry could not be split into multiple classifications merely because it might also be used for other purposes.

Conclusion: The same goods could not be classified under both entries on the basis of different end uses, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected on the substantive classification challenge, and the order classifying the goods under entry 2 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods have a recognised commercial identity and fall within a specific entry, that specific entry prevails over a general entry, and alternative uses of the goods do not justify multiple tax classifications based on the purchaser's intended use.

---