Commercial identity and trade parlance governed classification, so a cement substitute used like cement was treated as cement.

The tariff classification of a cement substitute turned on commercial identity and trade parlance, not merely its label or absence of ISI certification. Because the product functioned as a masonry binder used in construction like cement, and its composition was substantially similar to cement, it was treated as an inferior type of cement rather than a distinct commercial commodity. On that basis, the product was classified under the cement entry and the Revenue's classification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "LYMPO", described as a cement substitute, is classifiable as cement under the relevant tariff entry.

Analysis: The product was shown to be a masonry binder used for construction purposes in the same manner as cement, except for RCC construction. The material on record indicated that its composition was similar to cement in substance, and the decisive consideration was the manner in which the product was known and used in trade parlance. The fact that it was not certified to satisfy ISI norms did not displace its commercial identity for classification purposes. On the facts, the product was found to be an inferior type of cement rather than a separate commercial commodity merely because it was called a cement substitute.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable as cement and the classification adopted by the Revenue was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the departmental classification of LYMPO as cement was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive test is the product's commercial identity and trade parlance understanding, and a cement substitute that functions and is used as cement may be treated as cement for excise purposes.

---