Common parlance controls exemption scope where a notification uses its own language, sustaining kraft paper concession.

Uncoated kraft paper continued to fall within Notification No. 25/84 because the department failed to produce reliable evidence that the product was not commonly known as kraft paper, and the classification already accepted was not displaced. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 did not control the exemption because the notification used its own language and applied a common parlance standard rather than the tariff definition. The exemption benefit was therefore sustained and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the product manufactured by the assessee was kraft paper and entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 25/84; (ii) whether Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 governed the interpretation of the notification.

Issue (i): whether the product manufactured by the assessee was kraft paper and entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 25/84.

Analysis: The classification of the product as uncoated kraft paper was not disturbed, and the department did not produce reliable evidence to establish that the product was not commonly known as kraft paper. The notification granted concessional duty to all sorts of paper commonly known as kraft paper, and the departmental case on non-fulfilment of the notification conditions remained unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The product was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 25/84 and the assessee was entitled to the concession.

Issue (ii): whether Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 governed the interpretation of the notification.

Analysis: Chapter Note 6 contained a statutory definition for tariff classification, but the notification used its own language and proceeded on the common parlance basis. Since the notification deliberately differed from the tariff definition, Chapter Note 6 was not determinative for applying the exemption notification.

Conclusion: Chapter Note 6 did not control the applicability of Notification No. 25/84.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed, and the order granting the exemption benefit to the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification uses its own descriptive language and common parlance standard, the tariff definition in a chapter note will not govern its scope unless the notification expressly or by necessary implication adopts that definition.

---