Commercial meaning governs excise classification of aluminium gas tandoor, bringing it within utensil exemption.

An aluminium gas tandoor was treated as an aluminium utensil for excise classification because its commercial and ordinary meaning, supported by dictionaries, trade understanding, and the Hindi term "bartan," prevailed over a narrower appliance-based reading. The reliance on ISI specifications was rejected as non-exhaustive, and advertising material was held irrelevant to classification. The product's gas operation did not prevent it from being understood as a utensil, and the existence of a separate tariff entry for electrically operated items did not displace that conclusion. On that basis, the article fell within the exemption under Notification No. 244/77 and was not classifiable under Tariff Item 68.

---

---

Issues: Whether the aluminium gas tandoor was classifiable as an aluminium utensil and therefore entitled to exemption under Notification No. 244/77 dated 15-7-1977, or whether it was a distinct appliance liable to classification under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The product, on examination of the sample and catalogue, was found to be a gas-operated tandoor in which heat passed through a mesh for baking bread and rotis, with a small aluminium utensil for cake and similar items. The contention based on ISI specifications was rejected as non-exhaustive and not ative of excisability. The broader meanings of the word "utensil" in dictionaries, the Hindi equivalent "bartan", the Government circular on aluminium utensils, and trade certificates all supported the view that the product was understood in commercial parlance as a utensil. The argument that a similar item would fall under Tariff Item 33D if electrically operated did not displace the present classification, since the product did not use electricity and a separate specific item for electrical appliances did not exclude all utensils from the wider meaning of the term. The advertisement describing the product's virtues was also held to be irrelevant for classification.

Conclusion: The product was correctly treated as an aluminium utensil falling within the exemption, and the challenge to the appellate order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the commercial and ordinary meaning of the article prevails, and an item may remain a utensil notwithstanding that it also functions as an appliance, unless the tariff specifically compels a different classification.

---