Papad classification under GST depends on trade understanding and product character, not shape or popular name.

Papad classification under GST turns on common parlance, trade understanding, ingredients, manufacturing process and end use when the term is not defined in the statute. A flour-based product formed in different shapes and sizes, and intended to be roasted or fried before consumption, may still answer the commercial description of papad even if marketed as fryums. Shape alone is not decisive, and the specific heading for papad prevails over a residuary edible-preparation heading. On that basis, the product falls under Tariff Item 1905 90 40 and qualifies for nil GST under the relevant exemption entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's product, described as papad of different shapes and sizes, was classifiable under Tariff Item 1905 90 40 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and eligible for nil GST under the entry for papad, or whether it fell under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 as a residuary edible preparation.

Analysis: The term "papad" was not defined in the GST enactments, so classification had to be determined on common parlance, trade understanding, ingredients, manufacturing process, and end use. The product was found to be made from flour-based dough, formed through dies in different shapes and sizes, and required roasting or frying before consumption, which kept it within the commercial understanding of papad. The fact that the goods were popularly referred to as fryums did not change their essential character, since shape alone was not decisive and the product remained a papad of a different variety. Applying the rule that a specific description prevails over a general residuary heading, the product could not be shifted to Heading 2106 when Heading 1905 specifically covered papad. The entry "papad, by whatever name it is known" was held wide enough to include the appellant's product.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Tariff Item 1905 90 40 and entitled to nil GST under the relevant exemption entry, not under Tariff Item 2106 90 99.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling was modified in the appellant's favour, and the impugned goods were held to be exempt papad for GST purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the commercial identity, ingredients, process, and use of the goods determine whether they answer the description of papad, and a residuary heading cannot be applied where a specific heading expressly covers the product.

---