1990 (4) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the product 'Paushamycin,' a mixture of oxytetracycline and streptomycin, qualifies for duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, concerning the eligibility of 'Paushamycin' for duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982. The core issue revolved around whether 'Paushamycin,' comprising oxytetracycline and streptomycin, could be considered for duty exemption. The product was described as an anti-bacterial plant spray used to control bacterial plant diseases effectively. The Assistant Collector initially ruled that 'Paushamycin' did not qualify for exemption as it was deemed an anti-bacterial substance, not an insecticide, during the relevant periods from 1979 to 1982 and January 1983 to August 1984.

Upon appeal, the earlier decision was overturned, and the demand raised by the Assistant Collector was set aside. The dispute centered on whether 'Paushamycin' fell under the category of pesticides for duty exemption. The Departmental Representative argued that while bactericides might be considered under pesticides, they might not be eligible for exemption as per the relevant notification. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision in Agromore Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. Conversely, the respondents contended that streptomycin and tetracycline were listed in the Insecticides Act, 1968, and 'Paushamycin' was registered as an insecticide by the Ministry of Agriculture. Various publications and certificates were presented to support this claim.

After evaluating both parties' submissions, the Tribunal concluded that 'Paushamycin' qualified as a bactericide, falling under the umbrella term of pesticides. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Agromore decision, emphasizing that 'Paushamycin' was a bactericide or pesticide, making it eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also clarified that the relief granted by the Collector (Appeals) to the respondents rendered any cross-objection unnecessary, treating it as the respondents' written submissions.