Commercial parlance controls subsidy eligibility when a scheme uses an undefined commodity description and end-use alone cannot decide classification.

Where a fiscal incentive scheme uses an undefined commodity description, the expression must be understood by statutory classification and accepted commercial parlance, not by a purchaser's chosen end-use. Sodium petroleum sulphonate was treated as "detergent" for subsidy purposes because tariff classification, dictionary meaning, and commercial understanding showed it to be commonly known and used as a detergent, and the scheme contained no express exclusion. The rejection of subsidy based solely on the purchaser's declared end-use was therefore outside the proper scheme framework and open to writ challenge. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sodium petroleum sulphonate was covered by the expression "detergent" under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994 so as to qualify for subsidy. (ii) Whether the authority's rejection of subsidy on the basis of the purchaser's end-use of the product was sustainable and immune from judicial review.

Issue (i): Whether sodium petroleum sulphonate was covered by the expression "detergent" under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994 so as to qualify for subsidy.

Analysis: The identity of goods was held to be determined primarily by their statutory description, and if no express definition was available, by their accepted commercial identity. The Court noted that sodium petroleum sulphonate was treated as detergent in the tariff classification and, on dictionary and commercial understanding, it was a substance commonly known and used as a detergent. The absence of a special exclusion in the scheme meant that the product could not be denied the benefit merely because it had multiple uses.

Conclusion: Sodium petroleum sulphonate was to be treated as detergent for the purpose of the subsidy scheme, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the authority's rejection of subsidy on the basis of the purchaser's end-use of the product was sustainable and immune from judicial review.

Analysis: The Court held that the end-use chosen by a purchaser could not be the sole criterion for identifying the commodity, since the same product may have multiple uses. The authority had proceeded on an incorrect basis by treating the purchaser's declaration of use as decisive, rather than applying the scheme and the proper test of classification. Because the discretion was not exercised within the framework of the scheme, the order was open to challenge in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable and was amenable to judicial review, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the rejection of subsidy was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration under the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal or incentive scheme uses an undefined commodity description, its meaning must be gathered from statutory classification and commercial parlance, and the end-use of the buyer cannot by itself determine eligibility.

---