Commercial parlance test decides air-conditioner casing classification; item was not proved to be a cabinet and stayed exempt.

Classification of the outer wrapper or casing of an air-conditioner turned on commercial parlance, not on a purely technical or dictionary meaning. The Tribunal accepted evidence that dealers in air-conditioners did not regard the article as a cabinet, but as an outer wrapper or protective cover, and the Department produced no rebuttal. On that record, the tariff description and relevant exemption notification did not justify treating the item as a cabinet. In taxing classification disputes, ordinary trade understanding governs and the party asserting excisability bears the burden of proof; the article was therefore not proved to fall within the excisable description.

---

---

Issues: Whether the outer wrapper or casing of an air-conditioner is a cabinet and therefore falls within the excisable tariff description, or whether it is a non-cabinet part entitled to exemption.

Analysis: The determination depended on how the goods were understood in commercial and trade parlance, not on a purely technical or dictionary-based description. The appellants produced affidavits and supporting material showing that persons dealing in air-conditioners did not call the article a cabinet and regarded it as an outer wrapper or protective cover. The Department produced no material to rebut this evidence despite having had time to do so. The tariff and the relevant notification also did not support treating the article as a cabinet on the record before the Tribunal. In taxing statutes, classification must reflect ordinary commercial understanding, and the party asserting excisability bore the burden of establishing it.

Conclusion: The article was not proved to be a cabinet and was not shown to fall within the excisable description on the evidence available; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---