Commercial meaning of tariff terms governs excise classification of caps that are easily removed and refitted without trace.

Tariff expressions in excise law must be construed in their trade and commercial sense from the viewpoint of the relevant purchaser class, not the ultimate consumer. Applying that test, caps that can be removed and refitted with skill without leaving an obvious trace are not "pilferproof" caps within Item 42 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the facts, the caps were found to be easily removable and refittable, so they did not afford the protection contemplated by the tariff entry. The finding that they were excisable as pilferproof caps was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's caps were "pilferproof caps" falling under Item 42 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and therefore liable to excise duty.

Analysis: The expression "pilferproof" was treated as having to be understood in its commercial sense. The relevant perspective was that of the manufacturers of pharmaceutical or other products who would purchase and use such caps in the course of trade, rather than that of the ultimate consumer. Caps that can be removed and refitted with skill, without leaving an obvious trace of removal, cannot properly be treated as pilferproof. On the facts, the caps were found capable of easy removal and refitting, showing that they did not afford the protection contemplated by Item 42.

Conclusion: The caps did not fall under Item 42 and were not excisable as pilferproof caps; the finding of excisability was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff expressions must be construed in their trade and commercial sense from the viewpoint of the relevant purchaser class, and caps that can be removed and refitted with skill without trace are not "pilferproof".

---