Common parlance test in excise classification excludes ultramarine blue from the tariff entry and duty liability.

Ultramarine blue was held not to fall within Tariff Item No. 14I(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because fiscal classification depends on the popular or commercial meaning of the goods, not on a technical or scientific description. Applying that common parlance test, the product was understood as a whitening substance rather than a paint, enamel, pigment, or similar excisable article, so excise duty could not be levied under that item. The earlier Supreme Court treatment of the same product on the facts was treated as controlling and reinforced the conclusion that the tariff entry did not cover it.

---

---

Issues: Whether ultramarine blue manufactured and marketed by the appellant was liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 14I(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The product had already been held by the Supreme Court, on the facts found, to be not chargeable under the same tariff item, and that approach was treated as controlling. The Court applied the settled rule that words in fiscal statutes not defined by the statute are to be construed in their popular or commercial sense, not in a technical or scientific sense. On that basis, and in light of the common parlance understanding of ultramarine blue as a whitening substance rather than a paint, enamel, pigment, or similar excisable item, the product was held not to fall within Tariff Item No. 14I(5).

Conclusion: Ultramarine blue is not liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 14I(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the assessee succeeds on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal classification, an unlisted product must be tested by its popular or commercial parlance meaning, and if it is not understood as answering the tariff description, it cannot be subjected to duty under that item.

---