TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther notifications. Under notification No. 62 of 1978 item 18 was introduced which read : Insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. The appellants claim that the disinfectant fluids manufactured by them would be entitled to exemption in terms of the said notification as they would be either pesticides or fungicides. 2. Their claim had been rejected by the Assistant Collector concerned, but, on appeal, they had succeeded before the Collector (Appeals). These appeals have thereupon been preferred by the department against the said orders. 3. We have heard Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, JDR, for the appellant Collector, and Shri F.H.J, Taleyarkhan, Advocate, for the Bombay Chemicals. Shri N.S. Sawant, Consultant, appeared on behalf of M/s. Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Company, and he adopted the arguments of Shri Taleyarkhan generally. We may note here itself that Shri Sawant referred to a contention that the order dated 11-12-1980 in their case was not competent on the ground that the classification having been once approved, ought not to be re-opened, but he himself later stated that this argument was not being pressed. 4. Shri Sundar Rajan argues that even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insecticides, pesticides and fungicides . 6. Shri Sundar Rajan then relied upon several Text Books and Reference Books in support of the department s contention. He contended that while insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides are to be used on living organisms, disinfectant fluids are to be used on inanimate objects and, therefore, no disinfectant would fall in the category of insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. In this connection he referred to pages 793 to 795 of Kirk Othmer s Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology. He pointed out that at page 794, and again at page 795, it is mentioned that disinfectants are to be applied on inanimate objects. But it may be seen that at page 794 it is also mentioned that fungicides inhibit growth of or destroy fungi (including yeasts) pathogenic to man or other animals on inanimate surfaces. Therefore, fungicides would appear to be applied on inanimate surfaces in order to inhibit or destroy pathogenic fungi. In the circumstances, the inference sought to be drawn by Shri Sundar Rajan does not appear to be correct. He then referred to an extract at pages 50 and 51 of the Text Book - Learning Chemistry - A modern way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of this contention. These are letters of Haffkine Institute, Parel, Bombay-12 (17-1-1969); King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Bombay (21-1-1969); Chief Medical Officer, Central Railway, Bombay (1-2-1969); and J.J. Group of Hospitals, Bombay (1-2-1969). These letters appear to have been written in response to letters sent by the Bombay Chemicals to the said hospitals, asking for replies from them with reference to the use to which the disinfectant fluids (manufactured by Bombay Chemicals) was being put to in these hospitals. On a direction from the Bench the Bombay Chemicals have sent us copies of their letters to these hospital authorities. They appear to have asked for the replies from the hospitals for the purpose of using the same in approaching the D.G.T.D. for issue of the certificate, without which import of the required raw materials would not have been permissible. It is seen that in all these letters the hospital authorities have mentioned that the disinfectant fluids manufactured from phenolic compounds are being used as both bactericide and fungicide, for the destruction of bacteria as well as fungi of medical and public health importance. While it is true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pared within the purview of the Pest Control Sectional Committee in line with international thinking. The argument is that this would also support the contention for the respondents that such disinfectant fluids would be pesticides as the standards therefor were being dealt with by the Pest Control Sectional Committee. Such a reasoning appears to us to be a little far fetched. 13. In this connection the respondents further relied upon an article in Pesticide Information by Dr. R.S. Rajagopalan under the title IS I Certification of Pesticides and their Formulations . It was pointed out that here also reference had been made to IS Specification 1061-1975 in Appendix A dealing with the list of pesticides. But, for the reason mentioned above, we are not inclined to attach importance to this reference in connection with the dispute before us. A similar argument was raised with reference to an Article Standardisation in the field of pesticides by Shri Lajinder Singh, Assistant Director (Agri. and Food), Indian Standards Institution. It is pointed out that here also he has referred to IS Specification 1061-1975. Here also Appendix A refers to IS Specification 1061-1975, but, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Insecticides, Pesticides, Weedicides and Fungicides . 18. As observed by my learned Brother, the case was mainly argued for the respondents by the learned advocate for Messrs. Bombay Chemicals and his arguments were adopted by the learned consultant for Messrs. Standard Chemical Pharmaceutical Co. There was one point in the case of Messrs. Bombay Chemicals which did not arise in the case of Messrs. Standard Chemical, namely, that the extended time-limit under Rule 9(2) was not applicable. I shall come to this argument at its proper place. Otherwise, I shall deal with the case of Bombay Chemicals, it being understood that the arguments and conclusions would equally apply to the case of Messrs Standard Chemical. 19. The question basically is whether disinfectants can be deemed to be included within the heading Insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides occurring in exemption notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1-3-1975, issued under Item 68, CET. To begin with, I would set out a few facts which are not in doubt or dispute :- (i) There is no doubt that the disinfectants, were excisable goods or that they were classifiable under T.I. 68. (ii) There is no doubt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d lead to. It will be convenient to deal with these from the point of view of the respondents. 24. Going by the literal and broad-based approach of the respondents, it would appear that the various terms are interchangeable or overlapping. This may be illustrated by the reference given by Messrs Bombay Chemicals. According to the draft ISO Recommendation on Common names for pesticides (pages 41-42 of the Compilation attached to their Memorandum of Cross-Objections and referred to in this Order as the Compilation ), the term pesticides would include among others bactericides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and avicides. However, disinfectants are not shown as one of the classes of pesticides. A very similar classification under pesticides is given in a book titled Chemistry of Pesticides by a Russian author (pages 63-64 of the Compilation). However, since this has been translated from the Russian, and the English versions of the terms have to be attributed to the translator, this reference is of doubtful value. 25. Again, the Tropical Pest Management Pesticide Index-1981 Edition (page 69 of the Compilation) contains an index of chemical, common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. He submitted that disinfectants were not included in the Schedule. Shri Taleyarkhan, however, brought it to our notice that the Schedule includes tar acid , which enters into the formulations of the respondents. Thus, both sides sought to derive support from the Insecticides Act. It is seen that in this Act, the term insecticide has been given a very wide meaning, covering (i) any substance specified in the Schedule and (ii) such other substances (including fungicides and weedicides") as the Central Government might include in the Schedule from time to time. 31. For completeness, we may refer to the I.S. Specification No. 1061- 1975 namely Specification for disinfectant fluids, black and white (Second Revision) . This does not contain any definition of disinfectants. It however, shows that they should have a germicidal property. In other words, they should be germicides if we may add another term to the many which are already before us. 32. The conclusion that would emerge from the above discussion is that various authors used the various terms in different senses. In one context, a term may be given a very wide meaning. In another, it may be given a restricted one. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejecting the claim of the Excise authorities that the kiln gas was carbon dioxide , the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that it was equally possible to call it nitrogen. 36. If the argument of the respondents were accepted, the term pesticides should be taken as covering insecticides, weedicides and fungicides. The use of those terms in the notification will then have to be regarded as mere surplusage. It is well-established that an interpretation which leads to such a result should be avoided. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons: a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute and it should be taken that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out. (See pages 56-57 of Principles of Statutory Interpretation , Second Edition, by G.P. Singh). 37. Another rule which leads to the same conclusion is that when in relation to the same subject matter, different words are used in the same statute, there is a presumption that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much weight cannot be attached to the letters given by various dealers. Even if one were to take them into account, they would not help the respondents, because it clearly comes out from these letters that the use of disinfectant fluids is in bathrooms, lavatories, gutters and drains or for cleaning the floor. These uses, which have been faithfully repeated by the various dealers, demarcate disinfectants from insecticides, pesticides, etc. 40. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that some of these disinfectants are referred to as deodorant fluid . Others actually contain perfumery materials - e.g., Bioflor Lavender Type and Bioflor Jasmine Type. Substances used for killing insects, pests, etc., are by their nature of noxious, and one is used to their having an unpleasant or irritating smell. On the other hand, it is quite usual for disinfectants either to neutralise existing unpleasant smells or even to add a pleasant smell (such as lavender or jasmine in the present case). This too would show that disinfectants are differentiated from pesticides, etc. 41. A word may be said about the certificates given by the Haffkine Institute, etc. Certainly, these cannot be sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted coal tar oil (high boiling tar acids). It also shows that various quantities of different disinfectant fluids and a disinfectant powder were manufactured out of the imported chemical. The statement also shows the disposal of the products manufactured. This statement bears an endorsement dated 17-6-1969 by the Development Officer, D.G.T.D. that the above particulars are verified and certified to be correct as verified from the Chartered Accountant s certificate . The respondents would like us to consider this as an expression of opinion by the D.G.T.D. that the disinfectant fluids referred to were insecticides/pesticides/fungicides. It is apparent that the certification by the D.G.T.D. was given with reference to Customs exemption notification No. 26/68 dated 1-3-1968, exempting chemicals imported for the manufacture of insecticides, pesticides and fungicides. The statement before us has been prepared by Messrs. Bombay Chemicals, who had imported the said coal tar oil, and its utilization was certified by the Office of D.G.T.D., on the basis of a Chartered Accountant s certificate. I do not wish to imply that the D.G.T.D. certificate was given in a casual manner. At the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the terms insecticides , etc., in the exemption notification were meant to cover particular formulations with well-defined uses and specifically for killing insects, etc. They cannot be equated or interpreted to include disinfectants, which are preparations for general disinfection purposes and which are used in bathrooms, gutters, floor cleaning, etc. Therefore, in the two cases before us, the view taken by the respective Assistant Collectors in holding that the disinfectants in question were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification was correct and the orders of the two Collectors (Appeals) against which the present appeals have been filed were in error. 49. I now come to the question of limitation raised by Messrs Bombay Chemicals. They have contended that the show-cause notice issued to them was dated 29-8-1979 and that in the absence of any fraud, suppression, etc., there was no justification for invoking the extended time-limit beyond six months. The Assistant Collector rejected this plea on two grounds. One is that the goods have now been assessed during the material period . The other is that there was a specific undertaking given by the respondents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to the service of the show-cause notice dated 29-8-1979, and that the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for the respondents should be set aside. The Cross Objection would stand automatically disposed of. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay I v. Messrs Standard Chemical and Pharmaceutical Co.-Appeal No. E/2079/85-C. The order dated 12-7-1985 of the Collector (Appeals) should be set aside and the order dated 11-12-1980 of the Assistant Collector should be restored. It should be noted that while we would restore the operative parts of the orders of the two Assistant Collectors (subject to the modifications indicated in regard to the case of Bombay Chemicals), we are not to be taken as subscribing to all the reasoning adopted by them. Our own reasoning would be as seen from this order. 53. [Order per: Syiem, Member]. - In paragraph 34, the learned President has, in just one sentence, put the case as I see it. 54. Everybody knows, reads about and even uses disinfectants, bactericides, pesticides, insecticides and fungicides some time or other, the last named, it is true, only rarely, though by no means unknown to the general community. Now, it is true that a disinfectant can destroy b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
