Common parlance governs tariff classification and exemption limits for kum kum pencils under excise law.

Kum kum pencils were held classifiable under Heading 3307.90 rather than Heading 3304.00 because they were treated as cosmetic or toilet preparations falling outside the heading for beauty or make-up preparations. The exemption notification for kum kum was also refused because the expression had to be understood in common or trade parlance, and kum kum pencils were not known in the market as kum kum. The stated principle is that tariff classification and exemption entries must be applied according to their plain, common meaning, and an exemption cannot be extended beyond the words used.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether kum kum pencils were classifiable under Heading 3307.90 of the Central Excise Tariff or under Heading 3304.00. (ii) Whether kum kum pencils were covered by Notification No. 323/86 dated 22-5-1986.

Issue (i): Whether kum kum pencils were classifiable under Heading 3307.90 of the Central Excise Tariff or under Heading 3304.00.

Analysis: The product was treated as distinct from beauty or make-up preparations. The common user of kum kum and similar forms over time was found to be proper grooming and traditional use, not beautification. On that basis, goods of this nature did not fall within Heading 3304.00 and were more appropriately covered by the residuary heading for cosmetics and toilet preparations not elsewhere specified.

Conclusion: Kum kum pencils were classifiable under Heading 3307.90 and not under Heading 3304.00.

Issue (ii): Whether kum kum pencils were covered by Notification No. 323/86 dated 22-5-1986.

Analysis: The exemption applied to goods known in common or trade parlance as kum kum under the notification. The expression was construed according to its plain meaning and not by extending it to every article capable of being used to make a mark on the forehead. Kum kum pencils, though usable for a similar purpose, were not known in the market as kum kum and therefore did not satisfy the description in the notification.

Conclusion: Kum kum pencils were not covered by Notification No. 323/86 dated 22-5-1986.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal succeeded, the order of the lower appellate authority was set aside, and the assessee's claim to classification and exemption failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff and exemption matters, goods are to be classified and described according to their common or trade parlance meaning, and an exemption notification cannot be extended beyond the plain words used in it.

---