Common parlance test in tariff classification: liquid hair dye was not "hair lotion" and the duty demand failed.

A liquid hair dye was held not to fall within the tariff description of "hair lotion" under Tariff Item 14F because its ordinary commercial meaning, actual use, and chemical character showed it to be a hair darkener rather than a lotion used for cleansing, soothing, antiseptic, medicinal, or nourishing purposes. The product could not be classified under that specific entry merely because it darkened hair or might loosely be called a lotion in a generic sense. Applying the common parlance test, the Court treated the residuary tariff item as the proper classification and found the demand based on Tariff Item 14F unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's liquid hair dye was classifiable as "hair lotion" under Tariff Item 14F of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, or fell under the residuary Tariff Item 68.

Analysis: The product was found to be a hair darkener and not a preparation used for cleansing, soothing, antiseptic, medicinal, or nourishing purposes ordinarily associated with a lotion. The Court held that, for tariff purposes, the product could not be treated as hair lotion merely because it darkened hair or might loosely be called a lotion in a generic sense. The common parlance understanding, the product's actual use, and its chemical character all showed that it did not answer the description of hair lotion under Tariff Item 14F, and the demand based on that item was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The product was not classifiable under Tariff Item 14F and the demand raised on that basis was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In classifying a product under a taxing entry, the decisive test is its ordinary commercial understanding and actual character, and a product cannot be brought within a specific entry by loose or generic usage when its true nature does not answer that description.

---