Trade parlance controls excise classification, and pozzolime was held outside cement tariff items, falling under the residuary entry.

Tariff classification of pozzolime turned on trade parlance and commercial understanding, supported by technical specifications, rather than dictionary meaning alone. The material showed that the product was chemically and functionally distinct from ordinary cement, and that its use for brick laying and plastering did not make it cement. Because Tariff Item 23(2) applied only if the product was first shown to be cement, it could not fall under Item 23(1) or 23(2). Pozzolime was therefore classified under the residuary Item 68, with the assessee succeeding and the Revenue's cross-appeal failing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product known as pozzolime was classifiable as a variety of cement under Tariff Item 23(1) or 23(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or whether it fell under Tariff Item 68.

Analysis: The classification had to be determined by trade understanding and commercial parlance, not by dictionary meaning alone. The product's ISI specification described lime pozzolana mixture as an alternative to cement and not as a category of cement. Technical literature, industry correspondence, and material on record showed that the product was chemically and functionally distinct from ordinary cement, even though it could be used for brick laying and plastering. The common presence of some ingredients such as lime and gypsum did not make it cement. As Tariff Item 23(2) applied only if the product was first shown to be cement, the product could not be brought within either sub-item 23(1) or the residuary sub-item 23(2).

Conclusion: Pozzolime was not classifiable as cement under Tariff Item 23(1) or 23(2) and was classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The assessee succeeded and the Revenue's cross-appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive test is trade parlance and commercial understanding supported by relevant technical specifications, and a product cannot be treated as cement merely because it shares some ingredients or performs a similar function.

---