Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 referred to Remington Pharmaceutical Sciences published by Mack Publishing Company in support of the argument that the two products could be insecticides. He urged that the two products are dealt with and known in the market as insecticides. Government of India, Ministry of Defence used the two products insect and mite repellents and such repellents are known as insecticides. In this connection, he submitted that mosquito and arvicidal oil, although not appearing in the Schedule of the Insecticides Act, have been accepted by the Additional Collector of Central Excise as insecticides. Referring to the Schedule, he said that Item 'Deet' which is only a repellent and not a killer had been included in the Schedule of the Insecticides Act. He also referred to Dte. General of Supplies 5c Disposals, New Delhi's letter dated 11-5-1982 which would suggest that the product D.VI.P. is an insecticides. He also referred to Dte. of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage, N.H. IV, Faridabad (Haryana)'s letter dated 10-5-1979, which intimated the respondents that the two products had till then not been included to the Schedule of Insecticides Act. Reference was also made to Ministry of Defence specification issued on 15-7-1966 about D.B.P. and D.M.P. and a similar letter issued by the same authority on 23-7-1975. Reference during arguments was also made to the portion relating to methods of insect control in Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences (Fourteenth Edition) at Page 1278. According to this, insect repellents, fumigants and attractants are considered insecticides in a broad sense. Reference was also made to the Petroleum Products Handbook by Virgil 3. Guthrie about the meaning of 'insecticide'. According to this glossary, insecticide means "a substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any insects present in the environment. Reference was also made to Explanatory Notes 2 of Section VI, Chapter 38.111 and 38.112 of Brussels Nomenclature dealing inter alia, with classification of insecticides and fungicides. According to these notes, products intended to repel pests are classified under this heading. Reference was also made to a letter dated 21-9-1981 from Small Industries Service Institute addressed to the respondents. This letter says that D.M.P. is used as an insect repellent by the Defence Department and as such may be considered 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.

(Rest of the Schedule is not relevant)
8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. In the view we take, it is not necessary to discuss in detail the various arguments put-forth by Shri Bhaskar Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent. The appeal must be dismissed on a short ground. The only ground on which the respondent is sought to be denied benefit of exemption under notification is that the two products do not find place in the Schedule in the Insecticides Act, 1968 and are therefore, not insecticides and pesticides within the meaning of the notification. Now, in another appeal, dealing with the same notification No. 55/75 dated 1-3-1975 as amended by Notification No. 62/78 dated 1-3-1978, parties M/s. Agromore Limited Bangalore v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore manufacturer in respect of four products i.e. (i) Ethrel plant growth regulators (ii) Ethrel latex stimulant (iii) Fruitone; and (iv) Transplantone claimed exemption under the notification on the ground that these products were included in the Schedule under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Revenue came up with the plea that notification could not be interpreted on the basis of Insecticides Act and Schedule thereto. This plea of Revenue was accepted by the Tribunal. In doing so, the Tribunal inter alia placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 5c Others reported in 1985 (19) ELT 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 referred to such an interpretation is given to it for the purposes of that Act alone".

It would be seen that the stand of Revenue or State in the present appeal is not consistent with the stand it took with respect to the interpretation of the same notification before the Tribunal in Agromore (Limited) case supra. In fact the stand is just the reverse of earlier stand. While in the Agromore (Limited) case, it pleaded that Insecticides Act and Schedule would not govern the interpretation of the notification and exemption thereunder would not depend on inclusion of the production in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the manufacturer holding a licence for manufacture of insecticides, in the present appeal it is sought to be made out that interpretation would depend on the inclusion of the product in the schedule to the Insecticides Act. The Revenue cannot be permitted to take such inconsistent and diametrically opposite stand about interpretation of the same notification.

9. Following the decision supra, we hold that the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Schedule thereto would not govern the meaning of expressions in Serial No. 18 of the notification supra. The consequence of this finding would be that the appeal must be dismissed.

10. We may, however, briefly refer to the material placed by Shri Shaskar Gupta. The letter of Ministry of Defence dated 11-5-1982 from the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Calcutta refers to the certificate whereby D.M.P. -an insect repellent is used by the Army Headquarters (Page 93 of the Paper Book). Government of India, Ministry of Defence specification issued on 15-7-1966 (Page 98 of the Paper Book) shows that D.B.P. is used as a mite repellent. Similar specification issued on 23-7-1975 by the Ministry of Defence at (Page 99 of the Paper Book) would show that D.M.P. is used as an insect repellent. Petroleum products Handbook published by McGraw-Hill Book Company (Photostat copy at page 101 of the Paper Book) under the heading 'insecticide' would show that insecticide means a substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any insects present in the environment. Brussels Nomenclature (Photocopy at page 102) though not strictly relevant for interpreting classifications 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 though they might not actually kill insects or pests, would still be treated as insecticides or pesticides. Shri Gupta had referred without challenge to inclusion of DEET a repellent in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act. This would further. support the respondent's case that a repellent even though not included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act could still be treated as insecticides or pesticides within the meaning of the notification, if the same is, by those dealing with it, understood to be an insecticides and pesticides. The benefit of the exemption could not be denied to the respondents on the only ground that the products were not included in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968.