Commercial parlance test governs excise classification of distinct glass varieties; market recognition defeats inclusion under sheet glass entry.

Excise classification of figured glass, wired glass, coloured figured glass and similar varieties turned on commercial and common-parlance understanding rather than a broad genus theory. The goods were shown to be known in the market as distinct commodities with different characteristics, uses and prices, and the Indian Standard Institution glossary also treated sheet glass, figured glass and wired glass as separate forms. On that basis, the disputed products could not be treated as sheet glass under Tariff Item 23A(1) and were instead placed under the residuary Item 68, with the departmental orders set aside and consequential relief directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner-company, namely figured glass, wired glass, coloured figured glass, rolled glass, coolex wired glass and coolex figured glass, were classifiable as sheet glass under Tariff Item 23A(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, or whether they fell under the residuary Item 68.

Analysis: Classification had to be determined by the test of how the goods were understood in common parlance and in the commercial market by persons dealing with them as buyers, sellers, manufacturers or users. The evidence led before the departmental authorities showed that sheet glass, figured glass, wired glass and the other disputed varieties were known in the market as distinct commodities with different characteristics, uses and prices. The court also noticed the Indian Standard Institution glossary, which treated flat glass as a general expression covering sheet glass and various forms of rolled glass, but separately defined sheet glass, figured glass and wired glass as different forms. The departmental authorities had ignored the relevant evidence and had proceeded on an incorrect approach that sheet glass was the genus of all such varieties. On the facts found, the disputed goods could not be treated as sheet glass.

Conclusion: The disputed goods were not covered by Tariff Item 23A(1) and were correctly held to fall under the residuary Item 68. The impugned departmental orders were quashed and the petitioner was entitled to consequential relief, including reassessment and refund as directed.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the decisive test is the commercial or common-parlance understanding of the goods, and where the goods are separately recognized in the market as distinct commodities, they cannot be brought within a specific tariff entry by treating one variety as the genus of the others.

---