Popular parlance test decides excise exemption, and a tooth-cleaning product was not treated as an Ayurvedic medicine.

Exemption entries under excise law are construed by the product's popular or common parlance meaning, not by scientific or technical description. Applying that test, Dant Manjan Lal was treated as a toilet preparation used daily for cleaning teeth, and the evidence did not show that common consumers regarded it as an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation. Certificates, affidavits, expert opinions and Ayurvedic texts were insufficient to displace that market understanding. The product was therefore not classified as an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation and was not entitled to exemption from excise duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether Dant Manjan Lal was an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation eligible for exemption from excise duty under the exemption notification.

Analysis: In construing exemption entries under the excise law, the decisive test is the meaning attached to the product in popular or common parlance, not its scientific or technical description. The product was found to be used daily for cleaning teeth and, on the material before the Tribunal, was understood as a toilet preparation rather than a medicine. Certificates, affidavits, expert opinions and Ayurvedic texts did not displace the absence of evidence that the common consumer regarded it as a medicinal preparation.

Conclusion: The product was not an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation and was not entitled to exemption from excise duty.

---