Common parlance classification treats licenced kajal as ayurvedic medicine, not cosmetic, despite beautification use.

For sales tax classification under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, kajal supported by a drug licence and unrebutted material showing it was prepared to ayurvedic specifications is treated in common parlance as an ayurvedic medicine. The mere fact that the product is used for beautification does not, by itself, make it a cosmetic. The classification approach also draws support from analogous excise jurisprudence and prior treatment of similar products, placing the commodity under the entry applicable to ayurvedic preparations rather than the competing cosmetic entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether kajal sold by the assessee was classifiable as an ayurvedic medicine under the relevant entry of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or as a cosmetic under the competing entry.

Analysis: The product was shown by the drug licence issued to the manufacturer to be an ayurvedic preparation, and the assessee's case that it was prepared according to ayurvedic specifications was not controverted by the Revenue. The Court treated the nature of the commodity as one to be determined by common parlance, while noting that actual use for beautification does not by itself make a product a cosmetic. Reliance was placed on the earlier decision concerning a similar product and on the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Revenue. The Court also found support from the classification approach adopted in analogous excise jurisprudence.

Conclusion: Kajal was held to be an ayurvedic medicine, not a cosmetic, and taxable under the entry applicable to ayurvedic preparations.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification purposes, a product shown by its drug licence and unrebutted material to be an ayurvedic preparation is to be treated in common parlance as an ayurvedic medicine, and mere use for beautification does not make it a cosmetic.

---