Trade and common parlance test classifies essence of chicken as broth for excise duty purposes

Essence of chicken was classified for excise purposes by applying its trade and common parlance meaning rather than its end-use. On that approach, it was not treated as a meat extract or meat juice, but it was held to answer the description of broth and, in any event, a prepared or preserved food within the relevant tariff entry. The article states the governing principle that fiscal classification turns on ordinary commercial understanding, so a product falls within the entry if it matches that description notwithstanding its composition or intended use.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether essence of chicken is a meat extract or meat juice falling within Item 3 of the Schedule to the notification under Entry 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) Whether essence of chicken is a broth and therefore a prepared or preserved food falling within Item 6 of the Schedule and liable to excise duty under Entry 1B.

Issue (i): Whether essence of chicken is a meat extract or meat juice falling within Item 3 of the Schedule to the notification under Entry 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The expression "meat" in a fiscal entry was examined in its ordinary and trade understanding. Although the term may in a broad sense include poultry, the product in question was manufactured from chicken flesh together with bones and was not shown to be merely a meat extract or meat juice. On that basis, the product could not be brought within the specific item relating to meat extracts and meat juices.

Conclusion: Essence of chicken was not held to be a meat extract or meat juice under Item 3.

Issue (ii): Whether essence of chicken is a broth and therefore a prepared or preserved food falling within Item 6 of the Schedule and liable to excise duty under Entry 1B.

Analysis: In construing a taxing entry, the meaning of the article as understood in trade and in common parlance was applied, and the end-use of the article was treated as irrelevant. Essence of chicken was prepared by processing chicken flesh and bones in water and was used as an article of food. On that popular meaning, it answered the description of broth, and in any event was a prepared and preserved food within Entry 1B.

Conclusion: Essence of chicken was held to be a broth and a prepared or preserved food liable to excise duty under Entry 1B.

Final Conclusion: The levy of central excise duty on essence of chicken was upheld, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In interpreting a fiscal entry, an article must be classified according to its trade and popular meaning, and if the product answers that description it falls within the tariff entry notwithstanding its particular use or composition.

---