Common parlance test governs hair oil classification as perfumed hair oil, despite labels suggesting added nourishment.

Tariff classification of Johnson's Baby Hair Oil turned on the common parlance test: the product had to be classified according to how consumers and the trade understood it, not merely by labels or advertising. Test reports and affidavits supported the view that it was perfumed hair oil, while the product labels referring to nourishment of hair roots were not decisive on their own. As the Department produced no material to show a different market understanding, the product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 and not under 3305.99.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product marketed as Johnson's Baby Hair Oil was classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil or under sub-heading 3305.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Classification of the product depended on how it was understood in the market and by common consumers. The test report and affidavits placed on record supported the view that the product was perfumed hair oil. The product labels, even if referring to ingredients said to nourish hair roots, were not decisive by themselves. The decisive factor was the common parlance test, and the Department produced no material to show that the product was commonly understood differently. The reasoning followed the principle that tariff classification must be based on consumer perception and trade understanding, not merely on advertising or suggestive labelling.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil and not under sub-heading 3305.99. The finding was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---