Trade parlance governs excise classification, and product evidence supported Indian Katha rather than a tanning extract.

Classification of excisable goods depends on trade parlance and common commercial understanding, not on definitions borrowed from another statutory regime. The Tribunal noted that the record included invoices and trade material describing the product as "Indian Katha", while the department relied mainly on composition and Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. As the department did not prove that the product was understood in trade as a tanning extract, the goods were classified as "Indian Katha" under Tariff Item No. 14049050. The demand and penalty founded on classification under Tariff Item No. 32019090 therefore did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product manufactured by the appellant was classifiable as "Indian Katha" under Tariff Item No. 14049050 or as a tanning extract under Tariff Item No. 32019090 for the purpose of central excise duty.

Analysis: Classification of excisable goods depends on how the product is understood in trade parlance and common commercial usage, not by borrowing the definition or standards used in another statutory regime. The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority had proceeded mainly on composition and on Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, whereas the record also contained invoices and trade material describing the goods as "Indian Katha". The department did not establish that the product was understood in the trade as a tanning extract.

Conclusion: The product was held to be "Indian Katha" classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14049050, and the demand and penalty based on classification under Tariff Item No. 32019090 did not survive.

---