Common parlance test denies utensil exemption for water-filter pots, while limitation restricts the demand period.

Water-filter pots did not qualify as aluminium utensils for exemption under Notification No. 244/77 because, in ordinary common parlance, "utensils" refers to domestic or kitchen articles used for cooking, eating, drinking, serving, carrying or storing food or drink; articles used for water filtration in homes, hospitals, factories or offices fell outside that description. The demand was also confined to the normal six-month limitation period because the classification lists had been approved and there was no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. The exemption claim therefore failed, but the demand was restricted by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether water-filter pots manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 244/77 dated 5.7.77 as aluminium utensils; and (ii) whether the demand was barred by time.

Issue (i): Whether water-filter pots manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 244/77 dated 5.7.77 as aluminium utensils.

Analysis: The exemption applied only to aluminium utensils. The expression "utensils" was construed in its ordinary and common parlance sense as articles used in a kitchen or for cooking, eating, drinking, serving, carrying or storing food or drink. Water-filter pots were found to be articles used for drinking-water filtration in households as well as in hospitals, factories and offices, and not kitchenware used for cooking or domestic utensil use. Separate standards existed for drinking-water filters, indicating that such articles were not treated as utensils.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption for water-filter pots under Notification No. 244/77.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by time.

Analysis: The classification lists had been approved by the department, and there was no allegation of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement. In these circumstances, the extended demand could not stand for the entire period claimed, and the liability had to be confined to the normal limitation period of six months preceding the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred beyond six months prior to the show cause notice and was restricted accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, but the demand was curtailed by limitation, leaving the appellant with partial relief on the time-bar issue.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under a notification for aluminium utensils, the article must answer the ordinary and common parlance meaning of a utensil as a domestic or kitchen article; where no suppression or wilful misstatement is shown, demand cannot extend beyond the normal limitation period.

---