Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Rosin And Terpentine Factory vs C.C.E. on 2 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(94)ELT187(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Rosin and Terpentine Factory, the point for determination is whether the phenyle was medicament as claimed by the appellants or was a disinfectant as classified by the Revenue. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Chandigarh who had adjudicated the matter, had held that keeping in view the function, use and description of the product in question it was classifiable under Heading No. 3801.90 as disinfectant. The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh who in para 5 of her order held as under :-
5. "I have gone through the case records. The point for determination is whether 'Phenyl' is classifiable under sub-heading 3901.90 or 3003.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. I agree with the finding of the Assistant Collector that just because the product is used in cleaning of wounds of animals, it cannot be inferred that it is a medicament and also it is a well known fact that phenyle essentially consists of phenols and cresols as active ingredients. I also find that the appellants have nowhere adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim. Further, drug means any substance used in the manufacture of medicine and 'medicine' means any substance used for the treatment or prevention of disease and as such, the product does not answer the definitions of drug or medicines. Merely use of the product i.e. 'Phenyle' by the veterinary departments does not mean that the product is classifiable under heading covering medicines. I, therefore, uphold the orders of the Assistant Collector and dismiss the appeals".
2. We have heard Shri Man Mohan Khanna, advocate, for the appellants and Shri J.M. Sharma, JDR, for the revenue.
3. We find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ambey Laboratories v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 330 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had referred to their earlier decision in the case of Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 436 and had held that liquid phenyle was a disinfectant.
4. In the case of Bombay [Chemical] Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme Court had also explained the term disinfectant. They had held that a disinfectant is one which is used for disinfecting or destroying the germs and that the term disinfectant is wider than the term pesticide. The appellants in their classification list also have referred to their product phenyle as disinfectant fluid.
5. We have already extracted the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and keeping in view the settled position in law, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result both these appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly.