Common parlance governs excise classification: window-frame putty was not treated as paint under the tariff entry.

Limitation for a review show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was computed from the date the appellate order was communicated to the affected party, because the order was not complete until made known; on that basis, the notice was within time. For classification, putty used in window frames was treated according to its common parlance and trade understanding, not as paint or painter's material, because it was used to fix glass panes and was known in commerce as window-frame putty. The review objection failed on limitation, and the product was held outside Tariff Item No. 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether putty for use in window frames was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14 of the Central Excise Tariff as paint or painter's material.

Issue (i): Whether the review show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The relevant date for limitation was taken as the date on which the appellate order was communicated to the affected party, since the order affected rights and was not complete until made known to the party. On the records, the appellate order was despatched on 24-7-1976 and the review notice dated 22-7-1977 was served on 23-7-1977. The notice was therefore within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether putty for use in window frames was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14 of the Central Excise Tariff as paint or painter's material.

Analysis: The product conformed to the relevant I.S.I. specification for putty used on window frames, was used without thinner, and served the function of fixing glass panes in position rather than decorating or protecting a surface. Its predominant buyers were glass dealers and glaziers, and its trade understanding was that of window-frame putty, not paint or enamel. Classification under the tariff entry had to answer the description in trade and commerce, and the common parlance meaning of the goods did not support treatment as paint.

Conclusion: The product was not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14 as paint, and the assessee succeeded on the classification issue.

Final Conclusion: The review proceedings were dropped, and the demand based on classification of the product as paint did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, goods must be identified according to their common parlance and trade understanding, including their ordinary commercial use; where the product is known in trade as a distinct article and is not understood as the tariff entry description, it cannot be classified under that entry.

---