Specific product classification under tax notifications prevails over general wording, with consistency supporting settled treatment.

Horlicks was analysed under competing West Bengal sales tax notifications, with the tribunal note stating that the product was specifically named in Notification No. 886-F.T. and therefore remained within that entry rather than the later food-drink classification. The proviso to Notification No. 886-F.T. was treated as an exception for goods covered only by the general description, not for products expressly illustrated in the main entry, so it did not exclude Horlicks. The note also records that the principle of consistency and contemporaneous administrative construction supported the long-standing revenue treatment, and that a settled position should not be departed from absent a proved change in composition or law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Horlicks was to be treated as powdered or condensed milk under Notification No. 886-F.T. dated 1 May 1955, or as a powder for food drinks under Notification No. 790-F.T. dated 2 April 1957 as substituted by Notification No. 763-F.T. dated 29 March 1994; (ii) Whether the proviso to Notification No. 886-F.T. dated 1 May 1955 applied to Horlicks so as to exclude it from the main entry; (iii) Whether the long-standing treatment of Horlicks by the revenue as falling within Notification No. 886-F.T. should be departed from for the disputed period.

Issue (i): Whether Horlicks was to be treated as powdered or condensed milk under Notification No. 886-F.T. dated 1 May 1955, or as a powder for food drinks under Notification No. 790-F.T. dated 2 April 1957 as substituted by Notification No. 763-F.T. dated 29 March 1994.

Analysis: Horlicks was specifically named in the main part of Notification No. 886-F.T. among the illustrated products described as powdered or condensed milk. The words used in that entry were treated as illustrative, not exhaustive, and the later food-drink notifications did not name Horlicks. On a proper construction of the notifications, Horlicks remained within the first notification and could not be shifted into the later food-drink entry merely by general description.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Horlicks fell under Notification No. 886-F.T. dated 1 May 1955 and not under the food-drink notifications.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Notification No. 886-F.T. dated 1 May 1955 applied to Horlicks so as to exclude it from the main entry.

Analysis: The proviso was held to be a qualifying exception for goods otherwise covered by the general descriptive part of the notification, but not for the specifically named illustrated products. Since Horlicks was expressly included among the illustrations in the main part, the proviso could not be used to displace that specific inclusion.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The proviso did not apply to Horlicks.

Issue (iii): Whether the long-standing treatment of Horlicks by the revenue as falling within Notification No. 886-F.T. should be departed from for the disputed period.

Analysis: The product had been accepted for decades as covered by Notification No. 886-F.T., and the revenue had not challenged that position for many assessment years. The Court applied the principle of consistency and contemporaneous administrative construction, holding that the settled position should not be altered for the relevant period in the absence of any proved change in composition.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The revenue was not justified in departing from the settled treatment for the disputed period.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment, interest determination, appellate order, revisional order, and consequential demand actions were set aside, and the matter was sent back for a fresh assessment in accordance with the Court's view of the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product is specifically named in the illustrative part of a taxing notification, it is governed by that entry and cannot be displaced by a proviso meant for other goods or by a later general classification unless the notification clearly so provides; a long and consistent administrative construction should ordinarily not be disturbed in the absence of a demonstrated change in facts or law.

---