Bicycle parts classification under common parlance requires first determining whether goods are parts before treating them as accessories.

In a classification dispute over bicycle items, the threshold question is whether the goods are bicycle parts; only if they are not, can the enquiry move to another scheduled or residuary entry. The Tribunal erred by treating the items as accessories without first determining their true classification, especially because no separate taxing entry for bicycle accessories existed under the Act. Evidence such as certificates, tender specifications, manufacturers' price lists and consumer understanding was relevant to the common parlance test and could not be ignored as extraneous. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the available evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in treating the disputed bicycle items as accessories without first determining whether they were bicycle parts, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the common parlance material placed on record.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the dispute on the footing that the items were accessories, though there was no separate taxing entry for bicycle accessories under the Act. In a classification dispute, the threshold question was whether the goods answered the description of bicycle parts; only if they did not, would the enquiry move to some other scheduled or residuary entry. The material relied upon by the assessee, including certificates, tender specifications, manufacturers' price lists and consumer understanding, was relevant to the common parlance enquiry and could not be discarded as extraneous. The Tribunal had also not undertaken an independent factual assessment of that material before relying on reasoning drawn from a different commodity dispute.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's approach was erroneous to that extent, and the matter had to be remitted for fresh adjudication on the available evidence.

---