Common and commercial parlance governs classification of tin-coated containers, with consistency barring resort to the residuary entry.

Containers made of tin plates coated with tin were held to answer the common and commercial description of "tin containers" where their essential character was that of metal containers with a tin coating, so they were not to be pushed into the residuary entry. The document also states that, once the assessing authority had accepted the same classification for a subsequent year and the Revenue had not disputed that position, consistency required the earlier year to be treated alike absent any distinguishing feature. The assessment was therefore to proceed under the specific entry for tin containers, and the contrary classification was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether containers made of tin plates coated with tin are "tin containers" within the common and commercial parlance meaning of that expression; (ii) whether the same goods, having been accepted as tin containers for a subsequent assessment year, could nevertheless be treated as falling under the residuary entry for the year 2003-04.

Issue (i): Whether containers made of tin plates coated with tin are "tin containers" within the common and commercial parlance meaning of that expression.

Analysis: The classification had to be determined by the ordinary trade and commercial understanding of the product. A container does not cease to be a tin container merely because it is not made entirely of tin. Where the essential character of the product is that of a metal container with a tin coating, it answers the description of tin containers in common parlance and is not driven to the residuary entry.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

Issue (ii): Whether the same goods, having been accepted as tin containers for a subsequent assessment year, could nevertheless be treated as falling under the residuary entry for the year 2003-04.

Analysis: Once the assessing authority had accepted the assessee's classification of tin containers under the specific entry for the subsequent year and the Revenue had not challenged that determination, consistency required the same treatment to be followed for the earlier year in the absence of a distinguishing feature. The acceptance for the later year reinforced the view that the goods belonged to the specific entry and not the residuary one.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was to proceed on the basis that the goods fell within the specific entry for tin containers, the contrary orders were set aside, and the appellate classification in favour of the assessee stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods must be classified according to their common and commercial parlance identity, and once a specific classification is accepted consistently for materially similar goods, the residuary entry cannot be invoked without a distinguishing basis.

---