Fact of the Case

• The candidate was occupied with the matter of assembling and promoting of "Papad" of various shapes and sizes which would stay in an un-cooked/semi-cooked structure.
• The consumer must fry it or bake it before consumption and on frying/baking.It filed an application for advance ruling to determine the product dealt in by the applicant, i.e.Papad of different shapes and sizes would be eligible to be classified.

Judgement

• The Authority for Advance Ruling observed that Papad was not defined and therefore as per settled principle of interpretation of statute that the word not defined in the statute must be construed in its popular sense.
• Also, Papad would be a thing entirely different and distinct from FRYUMS. Therefore, in common parlance or in market, Fryums were not sold as "Papad".Accordingly, in common parlance test, the "different shapes and sizes of Papad" would not be treated as "Papad" but as "Un-fried FRYUMS".
• Moreover, the applicant mentioned the fact in its application that in common parlance their product would be popularly known as "Fryums" in the market.Thus, it was held that product of different shape and sizes manufactured and supplied by applicant was "un-fried FRYUMS" and not "Papad" and would be classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 taxable at 18%.