Common parlance test in tariff classification: projection television sets are video projectors, not broadcast television receiver sets.

For exemption under tariff notifications, goods are classified by their common parlance identity, primary function, and market understanding. Projection television sets were held not to be broadcast television receiver sets because they differed in configuration, use, price, and trade perception; the exemption for broadcast television receiver sets was therefore unavailable. The same product was held to fall within the description of video projectors because it projected televised images onto a screen, matching the essential function of that category. The revenue appeal consequently succeeded, and the product was treated as a video projector rather than an ordinary television receiver.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether projection television sets were the same as broadcast television receiver sets for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 68/86 dated 10.02.1986; (ii) whether the goods manufactured by the respondent fell within the description of video projectors under Notification No. 160/86 dated 01.03.1986.

Issue (i): Whether projection television sets were the same as broadcast television receiver sets for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 68/86 dated 10.02.1986.

Analysis: The relevant exemption depended on how the goods were identified in the market and among consumers, since the notification did not define the product. Applying the common parlance test, the Court held that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function and utility. Projection television sets and broadcast television receiver sets were found to be different in configuration, use, price, and market perception. A conventional television set was understood as a compact receiver with an inbuilt screen, while the respondent's product projected images on an external screen and was not understood in trade as an ordinary television receiver.

Conclusion: The projection television sets were not broadcast television receiver sets, and the exemption under Notification No. 68/86 was not available to the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods manufactured by the respondent fell within the description of video projectors under Notification No. 160/86 dated 01.03.1986.

Analysis: The respondent's product received televised images and projected them on a screen. The Court held that a video projector is an apparatus for projecting illuminated images or motion pictures on a screen, and that the product's essential function corresponded to that description. The notification specifically covered video projectors, and the product therefore answered that description.

Conclusion: The goods manufactured by the respondent fell within the description of video projectors under Notification No. 160/86.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal succeeded because the respondent's product was not entitled to the exemption claimed and was classifiable as a video projector rather than a broadcast television receiver set.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under a tariff notification, goods are classified according to their common parlance identity, primary function, and market understanding, and a product that performs a materially different function cannot be treated as the same article merely because it receives television signals.

---