Popular commercial meaning controls excise classification of intercom equipment; internal office devices fall within the intercom entry.

In fiscal classification, goods are to be identified by their popular and commercial meaning rather than a technical construction. Intercom equipment designed for internal office communication was treated as an intercom device, not a telephone, because Item 33D expressly included intercom devices and excluded telephones; the ordinary Indian understanding of telephone was taken to mean a public telephone. The equipment was therefore dutiable under Item 33D. The text also states that, even if the article were outside Item 33D, it would still fall within the residuary Item 68 from 1 March 1975, so excise liability would in any event arise under that entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether intercom equipment manufactured by the petitioner was a "telephone" excluded from Item 33D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or an "intercom device" taxable under that item; (ii) Whether, even if the equipment was not taxable under Item 33D, it was liable to duty under Item 68 from 1 March 1975.

Issue (i): Whether intercom equipment manufactured by the petitioner was a "telephone" excluded from Item 33D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or an "intercom device" taxable under that item.

Analysis: In construing entries in a taxing statute, the controlling approach is the popular or commercial sense of the words used. Item 33D expressly includes intercom devices and excludes telephones. The equipment was designed and used as an internal office communication system and was understood in trade and in ordinary usage as an intercom, not as a public telephone. The ordinary meaning of telephone in the Indian context was held to denote a public telephone, not an internal communication apparatus.

Conclusion: The equipment was not a telephone within the exclusion in Item 33D and was correctly treated as an intercom device dutiable under that item. The finding was against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if the equipment was not taxable under Item 33D, it was liable to duty under Item 68 from 1 March 1975.

Analysis: Item 68 was a residuary entry covering manufactured articles not otherwise specifically provided for. If the equipment were treated as falling outside Item 33D, it would still be covered by the residuary entry from its commencement date.

Conclusion: The equipment would in any event have been liable under Item 68 from 1 March 1975. This conclusion was also against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, the impugned excise classification and demand were sustained, and the challenge to the departmental orders did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal classification, goods must be classified according to their popular and commercial meaning, and where an entry expressly includes a commodity and excludes another, the ordinary trade understanding governs the classification.

---