9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is reference. 3.. The articles referred to above are insecticides which are used for the production of agricultural products. The petitioner is found to be purchasing these articles from M/s. Burmah-Shell and selling them locally in the market. The trade literature relating to all the three articles was produced during the course of the inquiry. This literature shows that all these articles are poisonous, and may be fatal by skin contact, inhalation or swallowing spray mist. The trade literature describes these articles as "Shell Chemicals" for agriculture and industry. They are used for spraying the standing agricultural produce by mixing them with enough water, as directed by the manufacturers. The articles were also examined by Drugs and Chemicals Testing Laboratory, Bhavnagar, and the analysis conducted by the said laboratory reveals as under: 1.. "Result of analysis of Endrex 20 e.c.: Endrin content: 19.90 per cent W/v. (Hexachloro-epoxy-octahydro-endo, endo-dimethano-Naphthalene). Volatile hydrocarbons: 68.00 per cent W/v. Other material 12.10 per cent W/v." The result of this analysis indicate in the opinion of the abovereferred testing laboratory at Bhavnagar that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attached to the Act. 6.. The short question which arises to be determined is whether the disputed articles can be considered as chemicals as stipulated by entry No. 4 or not. If they can be considered as such chemicals, then the petitioner should succeed, but if they are not found to be "chemicals " as stipulated by entry No. 4, then obviously they would fall within the ambit of entry No. 22 of Schedule E because there is no specific entry in any of the four schedules mentioning any of these four articles. 7.. The first question which arises to be considered is what is meant by the word "chemicals". The contention of Shri Pathak, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was that since the disputed articles have been manufactured out of the chemicals as shown by the chemical analysis, they should be treated as chemicals contemplated by entry No. 4 of Schedule C. On close consideration of the scheme of the schedules and the meaning of the word "chemicals" as found in entry No. 4 of Schedule C, we find ourselves unable to accept this argument of Shri Pathak. We may first consider the broad classification within which the chemicals would fall. Encyclopaedia Britannica discusses t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dule C falls. Is it a basic chemcial or an intermediary chemical or an end-product? In order to decide this question, we have necessarily to bear in mind the fact that the word "chemicals" is put by the legislature along with the word "dyes". The use of both the words in the same entry supplies some clue as to the collocation and the colour which one would take from the other. In other words, the use of both these words together in one entry would attract the principle of noscitur a sociis, which means that where the meaning of a particular word is of a wider import, the legislative intent should be ascertained by reference to adjoining words in connection with which the disputed word is used, for the simple reason, that such adjoining words lend their colour and meaning to the disputed word. Here it should be noted that the word is "dyes". It cannot be disputed that dyes are intermediary products and are utilised for various purposes. Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology by McGraw-Hill, Vol. IV, shows that there are twentytwo classes of dyes having different chemical structures. Each of these twenty-two classes of dyes is based upon a peculiar chemical structure (vide page 337) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is powder was not an end-product but an intermediate product, and if that is so, obviously the said article would fall within the ambit of entry No. 4 of Schedule C even according to the view which we are taking in this reference. 9.. Shri Pathak contended that in the above-referred case in State of Gujarat v. Jayant Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd.[1975] 36 S.T.C. 112. (S.T.R. No. 10 of 1970) this court has not approved of applying the principle of noscitur a sociis to this entry No. 4 of Schedule C on the ground that this entry is a residuary entry so far as the dyes and chemicals are concerned. We do not find any justification for this submission, because, after perusing the said judgment, we find that the bentonite powder was held by the court to be a chemical, which would fall within entry No. 4 of Schedule C, and it was only for that reason that the court gave its decision that that powder was covered by entry No. 4. As a matter of fact, we do not propose to extend the principle of noscitur a sociis in support of the proposition that the chemicals referred to in the entry should be the chemicals of the type of which the dyes generally are. We apply the principle of noscitur a socii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense. This principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S.N. Brothers[1973] 31 S.T.C. 302 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 78. If therefore the meaning which could be attributed in the commercial sense to the word chemical or to the word insecticides is accepted as a safe basis, the question which would arise to be considered is whether if a consumer of the articles which are disputed in this case goes to the market and asks for a "chemical" from a dealer of these articles in the market, would he be supplied any of these articles? Would he understand that by demanding the "chemicals" he really wants to purchase Aldrex, Dieldrex or Endrex? Since these articles are germicides, they would not be known in the commercial world as mere "chemicals", which would obviously represent a very wide category of articles. Therefore, even applying the principles supplied by the Supreme Court in Ramavatar's case(1), it cannot be said that these three disputed articles fall within entry No. 4 of Schedule C. 12.. In this connection, it would not be out of place to make a reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
