9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent of Central Excise, Bangalore asking them to show cause to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore as to why the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,12,968.74 and Rs. 34,201.42 should not be recovered from them under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In response to the said show cause notice the appellant contended that the four products namely (i) Ethrel Plant Growth Regulator (ii) Ethrel Latex Stimulant (iii) Fruitone and (iv) Transplantons were classified as pesticides by the Government of India under the Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 3(e)(i)(ii) Schedule - Appendix I items 219 and 258. Notification No. 55/75 does not give an explanation as to what is an insecticide. In the absence of clarification by Government of India, Insecticides Act, 1968 had been taken as the basis for classifying the goods in question as insecticides and exempting the same under Notification No. 62/78 dated 1.3.1978. At the time of personal hearing it was argued that insecticides and pesticides are entitled to exemption under the Central Excise Rules. The appellant had claimed that all the four products were pesticides and merit exemption under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1.3.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prey to diseases. He had held that the four products (1) Ethrel plant growth regulators, (2) Ethrel Latex Stimulant, (3) Transplantons; and (4) Fruitone as products not covered by E.No. 18 of the Schedule to Notification No. 55/75, dated 1.3.1975 as amended by Notification No. 62/78 dated 1.3.1978. He had confirmed the demand of Rs. 34,201.42 and Rs. 1,12,968.74. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal to the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The learned Collector (Appeals) had upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector but had given the benefit of law of limitation to the appellant in respect of show cause notice dated 23.6.1981 for the period 1.3.1978 to 1.4.1980 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As a result, the demand of Rs. 1,12,968.74 was held to be time-barred. Regarding the show cause notice dated 25.9.1981 for the period 1.5.1980 to 31.7.1981 the appellants were directed to pay the duty for the period of 6 months prior to the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Shiva Subramaniam, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and physical properties of the pure chemical has been described; and the technical name is 2-Chloro Ethyl Phosphonic Acid and the common name is Ethephor and the trade names are Ethrei, Florel and Bromoflor and growth regulator use has been explained in general Ethylene responses in plants (fruit ripening abscission, flower induction, breaking apical dominance and many others and for application it is mentioned that it helps in the promotion of colour of apples, flower initiation on young trees and fruit abscission. Simila advantages it has in the growth of cherry walnut, cantaloupe fruit ripening grapes cranberries, pineapple flower induction, pineapple fruit ripening tomato fruit ripening etc. The learned Advocate states that there is no definition of pesticide under the notification or under the Act, and as such we have to resort to definition, under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The learned Advocate has referred to a judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in 1982 E.L.T. 917 (Born) where the Hon ble Bombay High Court had held that the rule that the words should be construed in a popular sens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt decision in the case of Leukoplast (India) Pvt. Ltd. others v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 70 where it has been held that advertisements are published by the manufacturers of a product in order to attract consumers and has nothing to do with the classification of a product of levy of duty. He has pleaded that in the instant case the learned Assistant Collector has referred to the pamphlets of the products manufactured where there is mention of the word stimulants for the plants . The same should not be adopted in terms of this Bombay High Court Judgment. He has also referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminum Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) where it has been held that the words and expressions should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, commerce and the consumer. He has also argued that the functional aspect should not be considered in classifying the product. In support of his argument he has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r have been intended by the legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction. The task of interpretation of a statutory provision is an attempt to discover the intention of the legislature from the language used. It is necessary to remember that language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of human intention. It is well to remember the warning administered by Judge Learned Hand that one should not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. If the purpose of a particular provision is easily discernible from the whole scheme of the Act, the intention should be found out from the language used by the legislature and if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result i.e. result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found and if another construction is possible apart from strict literal construction then that construction should be preferred to the strict literal construction. In supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld treat the same as pesticide and the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 62/78. She has referred to page 63 of the paper book and has pleaded that the classification by the Ministry of Agriculture of the products manufactured by the appellant as pesticides does not help the appellant in view of the Supreme Court judgment. She has referred to the definition of plant growth regulator as given in Condensed Chemical Dictionary by G.G. Hawley (10th Edition) page 280 and reproduced below : plant growth regulator. An organic compound, either natural or synthetic, that modifies or controls one or more specific physiological processes within the plant. If the compound is produced by the plant it is called hormone, e.g., auxin, which regulates the growth of longitudinal cells involved in bending of the stem one way or another. Substances applied externally also bring about modifications such as improved rooting of cuttings, increased rate of ripening (ethylene) and easier scission (separation of fruit from stem). A large number of chemicals tend to increase the yield of certain plants such as sugar cane, corn, etc. All these, as well as plant produced hormones a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellant. A simple perusal of the pricelist shows that the appellant did not file the details of the four products manufactured by them in the pricelist and as such the appellant s plea that there was complete disclosure of the fact before the Revenue authorities cannot be accepted. Since there is no cross objection filed by the respondent and as such we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the point of limitation. We have gone through the dictionary meanings of the 4 items which have already been reproduced above. A simple perusal of the same nowhere shows that the products manufactured by the appellant acts as insecticide or pesticide in any way. Rather the products help in the growth of the plants. Our views are further fortified by the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Co., Bombay reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 373. Para Nos. 37 and 48 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- 37. Another rule which leads to the same conclusion is that when in relation to the same subject matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not find that the four products namely (1) ethrel plant growth regulators (2) ethrel latex stimulant (3) fruitone; and (4) transplantone, manufactured by the appellant can qualify to be called as pesticides or insecticides. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.), had held that the meaning of a word given in another statute should not be adopted. Para 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below :- 4. The expression industry has many meanings. It means skill , ingenuity , dexterity , diligence , systematic work or labour , habitual employment in the productive arts , manufacturing establishment etc. But while construing a word which occurs in a statute or a statutory instrument in the absence of any definition in that very document it must be given the same meaning which it receives in ordinary parlance or understood in the sense in which people conversant with the subject matter of the statute or statutory instrument understand it. It is hazardous to interpret a word in accordance with its definition in another statute or statutory instrument and more so when such statute or statutory i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
