Strict fiscal classification of dual-use goods requires proof of the higher-tax entry, not assumptions from advertisements or licensing materials.

Classification of a dual-use product under fiscal entries must be based on strict construction, trade and commercial meaning, and actual consumer use. Where an article is capable of more than one use, the Revenue bears the burden of proving that it falls within the higher-tax category. Reliance on a licensing order and advertisements was found insufficient to conclusively show that the product was hair oil alone. Judicial notice was not an adequate substitute for proof, so the classification could not be sustained on the existing record and required reconsideration on proper material.

---

---

Issues: Whether Parachute coconut oil was classifiable as hair oil under the higher-tax entry or as coconut oil / edible oil under the lower-tax entry, and whether the classification could be sustained on the materials relied upon by the taxing authorities.

Analysis: Classification under fiscal entries must be made strictly, and where an article is capable of more than one use, the meaning attributed in trade and commerce and the actual use by consumers are relevant. When the article is of dual use, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that it falls within the higher-tax category. The grounds relied upon by the Tribunal, including reliance on the licensing order and on advertisements, were not sufficient to conclusively establish that the product was hair oil alone. In such a situation, judicial notice was not a safe substitute for proof, and the matter required reconsideration on proper material.

Conclusion: The classification decision could not be sustained on the existing record and had to be reconsidered; the Tribunal's order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted.

---