9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 9(1) or licence under Section 13(1) of the Act ibid and for these reasons the two products could not be considered insecticide within, the meaning of the notification and merit exemption thereunder. He also held the respondents guilty of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts and applied the longer time limit for raising demand. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta, however, by the impugned order relying on such authorities cited by the respondents before him and certificate issued by D.G.S.D. held that the respondents products which were insect repellent could be insecticides within the meaning of notification. He also held that the respondents could not be denied exemption under the notification because a part of the product was sold to certain customers as plasticizers. Hence the present appeal. 3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri A.K. Rajhans, learned Jr. Departmental Representative representing the appellant reiterated the grounds set out by the Assistant Collector in his order-in-original i.e. the respondents two products are not included as insecticides in the Schedule to Insecticides Act, 1968 nor did the respondents obtain registration or li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of sales made by the respondent to plastic manufacturers who had used D.M.P. and D.B.P. sold to them as plasticizers. In respect of this quantity it was alleged that they had been used otherwise than an insecticides and pesticides and were thus liable to pay duty. The Assistant Collector, however, enlarged the scope of the demand and demanded duty even with respect to supplies made to different departments and for a period of 5 years even though clearances were made by the respondents with full knowledge of Central Excise Department and on the strength of approved classification lists. According to him, shorter period of 6 months' limitation and not the longer period of 5 years could apply to demand of duty, if any. 5. About merits of classification, he submitted that number of insecticides specified in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act was not an exhaustive list. He assailed the Assistant Collector's reasoning that the two products D.M.P. and D.B.P. were not insecticides as they only repelled away insect or mite. He also submitted that the Assistant Collector erroneously and illegally without any basis held that the primary use of the two products was as plasticizers. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as an insecticide. The respondents were also advised to approach the State Directorate of Agriculture or Central Insecticide Board for further clarification if required. He also referred to letters, dated 9-3-1979 of Apan John & Co., dated 12-3-1980 of Technotrade Enterprises, dated 30-3-1979 of Advance Chemical Co. and, dated 21-4-1980 of Kroda Chemicals for the argument that the two products would merit classification only as insecticides and be thus eligible for exemption under the Notification. 6. Shri Bhaskar Gupta also submitted that Insecticides Act and the Schedule appended thereto could not control the meaning of the expressions insecticides, pesticides used in the notification. The expressions in the notification would have to understood as to how the same is understood commercially by the people dealing with the subject goods. According to him, the Insecticides Act and the Schedule appended thereto could not be read in the notification. He submitted that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was perfectly correct and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Reference during arguments was also made to a decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in MS.C.O Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). This Supreme Court decision dealing with the expression 'industry' inter alia, observed that "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 instrument is not dealing with any cognate subject". The Supreme Court decision also referred to observation in Clauses on Statute Law (6th Edition). which is in the following words :- "In construing a word in an Act caution is necessary in adopting the meaning ascribed to the word in other Acts. It would be a new terror in the construction of Acts of Parliament if we were required to limit a word to an unnatural sense because in some Act which is not incorporated or refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sifications of excise tariff of the relevant period would support the respondents argument that products intended to repel pests would merit classification under heading disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides and the like. The four letters, dated 9-3-1979, 12-3-1980, 30-3-1979 and 21-4-1980 from Apan John & Co., Technotrade Enterprises, Advance Chemical Co. and Kroda Chemicals respectively at pages 104, 105, 106 and 107 of the respondents paper book would support the respondent's claim that the products deserve treatment as insecticides. The first two letters relating to D.M.P., insect repellent describe it as being insecticide. Advance Chemical Company's letter describes D.M.P. as an insect repellent. Kroda Chemical's letter says that D.M.P. and D.B.P. are used by them as an insect repellent and mite repellent and as insecticides. According to Remingtom Pharmaceutical Sciences (Photocopy at page 92) Diethyl-toluamide, which is a mosquito repellent is treated as pesticides under USP. According to the same book, ibid Dibutyl Phthalate (D.B.P.) is used as an insect repellent. It also finds place in description as pesticides. All this leaves no room for doubt that repellents, even th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
