Other principles :

1. Rule of interpretation to be preferred over common parlance test

The Supreme Court held that Rules of interpretation will be preferred to the common parlance test.

[CCE v. Wood Polymers Ltd. 1998 (97) E.L.T. 193 (SC)]

2. Composition important in classification

Generally in classification matters, composition is important. The End User test would be applicable only if the relevant entry says so.

[CCE v. Mannampalakkal Rubber Latex Works, 2007 (217) ELT 161 (SC)]

3. Classification of waste of any article

Waste of any particular article will be classified as waste of that article only if the article retains its original character after the process yielding the waste is being carried on it.

[CCEx., Cochin v Apollo Tyres Ltd. 2005 (184) ELT 115 (SC)]

4. Applicability of Composition and end-user test

In matters of classification, “composition test” was an important test and “end -user test” applied only if the entry said so.

[CCEx. v. Mannampalakkal Rubber Latex Works 2007 (217) ELT 161 (SC) ]

5. Reliability on Wikipedia for the purposes of classification

Wikipedia, like all other external aids to construction, like dictionaries etc., was not an authentic source, although the same might be looked at for the purpose of gathering information. Where an express statutory definition of a word existed, a Wiki definition could not be preferred. It could not normally be used for the purpose of interpreting a taxing statute or classification of a product vis-à-vis an entry in statute.

[Ponds India Ltd. v. Comr. of Trade Tax, Lucknow 2008 (227) ELT 497 (S.C.)]

6. Non-alignment of entries in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and the Excise Tariff

When the entries in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and the Excise Tariff are not aligned, reliance cannot be placed upon HSN for the purpose of classification of goods under the said Tariff.

[Camlin Ltd. v. CCEx., Mumbai 2008 (230) E.L.T. 193 (SC) ]