Common parlance test governs tax classification of branded coconut oil as hair oil, not ordinary edible oil.

Branded parachute coconut oil was classified on common parlance and commercial understanding, not by its technical composition alone. Because it was marketed and sold as a hair-care product in small containers, at a price above ordinary edible oil, and represented as suitable for direct use or as a base for perfumed hair oil, it fell within cosmetics and toilet requisites rather than "oils of all kinds". The remand to the Assessing Authority was unjustified once the Tribunal had already reached a classification finding on undisputed facts, so that portion of the order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether branded parachute coconut oil was classifiable as "oils of all kinds" or as "all kinds of cosmetics and toilet preparations" under the relevant trade tax notifications; (ii) Whether the order remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority was justified after the Tribunal had already reached a finding on classification.

Issue (i): Whether branded parachute coconut oil was classifiable as "oils of all kinds" or as "all kinds of cosmetics and toilet preparations" under the relevant trade tax notifications.

Analysis: The commodity was accepted to be coconut oil, but classification under sales tax law depended on the popular and commercial meaning of the product as understood by dealers and consumers. The product was sold as "parachute coconut oil", advertised for hair care, packed in small containers, sold at a price above ordinary edible oil, and represented on the packing as suitable for direct use or as a base for perfumed hair oil. Applying the common parlance test and the principle that use and market perception control classification, the commodity was treated not as edible oil but as a hair oil falling within the category of cosmetics and toilet requisites.

Conclusion: The commodity was correctly held taxable as hair oil under the entry for cosmetics and toilet requisites, and not under "oils of all kinds".

Issue (ii): Whether the order remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority was justified after the Tribunal had already reached a finding on classification.

Analysis: Once the Tribunal had concluded on the nature of the commodity and its tax entry, further remand for probing was unnecessary. The dispute was already old, the material facts relevant to classification were undisputed, and no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back for fresh investigation.

Conclusion: The remand portion of the Tribunal's order was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The classification finding in favour of taxation as hair oil was sustained, while the remand direction was interfered with, leaving the revisions successful only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal classification disputes, the entry applicable to a commodity is determined by its common parlance and commercial understanding, especially its actual use and market presentation, rather than by its technical composition alone.

---