Trade parlance controls classification of water cooler casing; it was not treated as a cabinet for duty purposes.

A water cooler casing was not treated as a "cabinet" for purposes of the exception in Notification No. 80/62-C.E., because the term was undefined in the notification and tariff and the department bore the burden of proving that trade and commercial parlance understood it as a cabinet. The record contained no such evidence, and the finding was that the item was not known as a cabinet in the market. On that basis, the casing could not be brought within the duty-creating exception merely because it enclosed machinery, and duty liability on that ground was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the casing of a water cooler is a "cabinet" falling within the exception to the exemption under Notification No. 80/62-C.E. so as to attract duty.

Analysis: The notification exempted parts of refrigerators and air-conditioning appliances except specified items, including cabinets. The term "cabinet" was not defined in the notification or tariff. The department therefore had the burden to establish, by evidence, that the water cooler casing was understood as a cabinet. The record showed no such evidence, and there was a positive finding that the item was not known as a cabinet in trade and commercial parlance. In the absence of proof, and following the earlier tribunal view relied upon by the appellate authority, the casing could not be treated as a cabinet merely because it enclosed the machinery.

Conclusion: The casing of the water cooler is not a cabinet, and the department failed to establish duty liability on that basis.

---