Commercial parlance test bars excise exemption for melamine faced particle boards treated as distinct from unveneered boards.

Melamine faced particle boards were held not to fall within the expression "unveneered particle boards" in Item 6 of Notification No. 55 of 1979, so the excise exemption was unavailable. Classification turned on commercial parlance and common understanding: the boards were treated in trade as distinct from raw or unveneered particle boards because the melamine facing altered the surface, appearance, and commercial identity of the product. The Court also held that exemption entries must be strictly construed, the claimant must clearly establish coverage, and any doubt or ambiguity in an exemption provision is resolved against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether melamine faced particle boards fall within the expression "unveneered particle boards" in Item 6 of the table appended to Notification No. 55 of 1979 and are therefore entitled to exemption from excise duty.

Analysis: The relevant test for classification was whether the goods were understood in commercial circles and in common parlance as unveneered particle boards. On the facts and the manufacturing process, melamine faced particle boards were found to be commercially distinct from raw or unveneered particle boards. The melamine facing gave the boards a different surface, appearance, and commercial identity, and the product was not treated in trade as the same goods. The Court also rejected the reliance placed on expert affidavits and general descriptive material, holding that exemption entries must be strictly construed and that a claimant to exemption must clearly establish coverage. In case of doubt or ambiguity in an exemption provision, the benefit does not go to the assessee.

Conclusion: Melamine faced particle boards are not unveneered particle boards within Item 6 of the notification and do not qualify for the exemption.

---