Commodity classification under tax law turns on common parlance and true character, with conflicting bench views requiring larger-bench consideration.

Commodity classification for tax purposes depends on the product's common parlance meaning and true character. Bubble Gum was treated as confectionery under the ordinary understanding of the product, and the Court noted that a contrary bench view should not be ignored without recourse to the larger-bench mechanism. Swad Candy was not supported by reliable material as an Ayurvedic medicine made or prescribed for curing disease, so its treatment as a non-scheduled medicine was not sustainable. The revision was allowed and the assessee obtained relief on classification, while the limitation objection tied to the departmental appeal also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the departmental appeal before the Tribunal could be rejected as time-barred for want of a separate application for condonation of delay, and (ii) whether Bubble Gum and Swad Candy were taxable as unclassified items or had to be treated as confectionery or Ayurvedic medicine, as the case may be.

Issue (i): whether the departmental appeal before the Tribunal could be rejected as time-barred for want of a separate application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The record showed that the initially defective appeal was subsequently regularised and converted into a regular appeal. The Court held that once the defect was cured and the regular appeal was registered, the matter could not be attacked on the narrow ground that the original filing was delayed and no separate application had accompanied the first memo. The absence of a successful challenge to condonation, in the circumstances of the record, did not vitiate the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether Bubble Gum and Swad Candy were taxable as unclassified items or had to be treated as confectionery or Ayurvedic medicine, as the case may be.

Analysis: For Bubble Gum, the Court applied the ordinary parlance approach and held that the product, though not sweetmeat in the narrow sense, was a confectionery item. It also noted that a contrary view taken by another bench ought not to have been ignored without reference to a larger bench. For Swad Candy, the Court found no reliable material showing that it was an Ayurvedic medicine prescribed for curing disease or prepared in accordance with authoritative Ayurvedic formulae. On the available material, the product could not be sustained as a non-scheduled medicine liable at the rate applied by the Tribunal. The classification issue had to be resolved on the true character of the commodity and its common understanding.

Conclusion: Bubble Gum was liable to be treated as confectionery, and the Tribunal's treatment of Swad Candy as a non-scheduled medicine was not sustainable; the assessee succeeded on classification.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the first appellate authority's order was restored, resulting in relief to the assessee on the tax classification dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Commodity classification for tax purposes turns on the common parlance and true character of the product, and a Tribunal bench should not disregard another bench's decision on the same question without resorting to the larger-bench mechanism where conflicting views may arise.

---