Common Parlance Test for Excise Classification: adhesive plaster treated as surgical dressing, not adhesive tape, and placed in residuary tariff entry.

Adhesive plaster B.P.C. was held not to fall within Tariff Item 60 for adhesive tapes because, in common parlance, it was understood as a surgical dressing rather than an adhesive tape. The product was also found not to possess medicinal or therapeutic properties, supporting classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68. Earlier administrative and Board materials consistent with that view were accepted, while an earlier Tribunal decision on a similar product was not treated as binding because it had proceeded on concession and had not decided the point in issue. Classification under the Central Excise Tariff must therefore follow the product's true commercial identity.

---

---

Issues: Whether adhesive plaster B.P.C. manufactured by the respondents was classifiable under Tariff Item 60 as adhesive tapes, or under Tariff Item 68 as a residuary item.

Analysis: Tariff Item 60 covered adhesive tapes of all sorts. The product in question was adhesive plaster B.P.C., which in common parlance was treated as a surgical dressing and not as an adhesive tape. It was found not to possess medicinal or therapeutic properties. Earlier administrative and Board material supporting that view was accepted, while the earlier Tribunal decision treating a similar product under Tariff Item 14E was not followed because it had proceeded on concession and therefore did not operate as binding precedent.

Conclusion: The product was not classifiable under Tariff Item 60 and was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff must follow its true commercial identity in common parlance, and a decision rendered sub silentio or on concession does not bind on the point not considered.

---