Trade parlance controls tariff classification: tracing paper treated as other paper, not printing and writing paper.

Tracing paper was held not to fall within printing and writing paper under Item 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff because tariff classification turns on trade parlance, not on occasional use or dictionary meaning. As dealers and customers did not know tracing paper as a variety of printing and writing paper, it could not claim the lower-rated entry and was instead classifiable as other paper under Item 17(23). The classification issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether tracing paper was classifiable as printing and writing paper under Item 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff or as other papers under Item 17(23).

Analysis: Classification of excisable goods depends on how the goods are known in trade parlance. Mere capability of occasional use as writing paper, or a dictionary meaning suggesting that tracing may be a form of writing, is not decisive if the item is not understood in the market as printing and writing paper. Since tracing paper was not known to dealers and customers as a variety of printing and writing paper, it could not be placed in the lower-rated entry for printing and writing paper.

Conclusion: Tracing paper was not classifiable under Item 17(1) and was liable to be treated as other paper under Item 17(23); the issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the impugned goods were not shown to be known in trade as printing and writing paper, and the lower appellate order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive test is the identity of the goods in trade parlance, and occasional or possible use for a particular purpose does not control their classification.

---