Common parlance and predominant character controlled excise classification of electric fans as table fans.

Excise classification of electric fans turned on their essential character in common parlance, including design, manufacture and market description. Although the goods could be used in more than one manner, they were primarily understood and marketed as table fans, so classification as table fans was preferred over treating them as fans not otherwise specified. The Collector (Appeals)' view was held to be a reasonable one, and there was no basis for appellate interference. The classification as table fans was restored for tariff and exemption notification purposes, together with the concessional duty treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed electric fans were correctly classifiable as table fans for tariff and exemption notification purposes.

Analysis: The fans were capable of being used in more than one manner, but their design, manufacture and the accompanying literature showed that they were primarily marketed and understood as table fans. A classification based on their predominant character and common parlance was preferred over treating them as fans not otherwise specified. The classification adopted by the Collector (Appeals) was found to be a reasonable view, and there was no justification for appellate interference.

Conclusion: The fans were to be classified as table fans for both tariff and exemption purposes, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the classification and concessional duty treatment granted by the Collector (Appeals) stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the essential character of the goods as understood in common parlance, including their design, manufacture and market description, governs over mere versatility of use.

---