M/S. Bombay Chemical Private Limited v. the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay I, Bombay
R.M. SAHAI, J. This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central
Excises and Salt Ac~ 1944 raises the question whether disinfectant fluids F
manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notifica
tion No. 55n5-CE dated 1.3.1975, as amended by Notification No. 62178
dated 1.3.1978.
Notification No. 55n5-CE reads as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of G
the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby
exempts goods of the description specified in the Schedule an
nexed hereto, and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule
to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from the
whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1995] 3 S.C.R.
THE SCHEDULE
1. All kinds of food products and food preparations, including-
(i) meat, and meat products;
(ii) dairy products;
(iii) fruits and vegetable products;
(iv) fish and sea foods;
(v) bakery products, and
(vi) grain mill products.
2. Electric light and power."
In 1978 Item 18 was added to it which reads as under:-
"18. Insecticides, Pesticides, Weedicides and Fungicides".
The appellant claimed that the disinfectant fluids manufactured by it
were entitled to exemption after addition of item No. 18 in 1978. The
E Assistant Collector did not find any merit in the claim as insecticides,
pesticides, weedicides and fungicides are necessarily required to possess
the property and capability of killing insects, pests, fungi and weeds. It was
held that the disinfectant fluids produced by the appellant did not have the
property of killing any insect or pest, therefore, the goods produced by the
appellant could not be held to be covered in the exemption notification.
F The appellate authority did not agree with this reasoning as in common
parlance the products of the appellant were nothing but fungicides. In
further appeal by the Department the two members out of the three who
constituted the Bench did not agree with the reasoning of the Collector
and reversed tire order passed by him. It is the correctness of this order
G which is assailed in this appeal.
The Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the disinfectants
were exciseabie goods a11d that they were classifiable under Tariff Item 68.
It was further found that these were being referred to and marketed as
disinfectants and that the preparations in question were capable of killing
H various bacteria and fungi, but it refused to extend the benefit of the
. ,
....
,_
-1
BOMBAYCHEMICALv. C.C.E.[R.M.SAHAl,J.] 373
exemption notification as the notification being confined to specified A
categories, the appellant was not entitled to claim exemption by extension
of the principle that since the goods produced by the appellant satisfied
the broad test of killing insecticides, it should be held to be pesticides or
fungicides. According to the Tribunal, the exemption notification being
meant to cover particular formulation with well-defined uses and especially B
for killing insects, they cannot be equated or interpreted to include disin
fectants which are preparations for general disinfection purposes and
which are used in the bathrooms, gutters, floor cleaning etc. The Tribunal
considered various text books and literature produced by the appellant and
the Department and observed that various authors have explained the
terms used in the notification and the 'disinfectant' in different senses, C
some giving wider meaning to it and others narrower, therefore, it was not
possible to draw any conclusion as to exact demarcation between various
term,~. The Tribunal held that it would be unsafe to classify any product as
covered in the notification merely because it has the property to kill without
reference to its normal use. It then found that some of the disinfectants D
produced by the appellant are referred to as 'deodorant fluid'. Others
contain perfumery materials, i.e., Bioflor Lavender Type and Bioflor Jas
mine Type. The Tribunal held that the substances used for killing insects,
pests, etc. are by their nature noxious and one is used to their having an
unpleasant or · irritating smell. On the other hand, the disinfectants are
used either to neutralise existing unpieasant smell or even to add a pleasant E
smell. Consequently, even though the disinfectant fluids produced by the
appellant from phenolic compounds (tar acids) could destroy bacteria and
fungi, but this being a part of function as disinfectant fluids, it cannot be
classified as fungicide or pesticide.
'Disinfectant' is defined in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary 'as a
substance used to disinfect or to destroy the germs of infectious and
contagious diseases'. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English,
'disinfectant' is defined as 'a commercially produced chemical liquid that
destroy germs'. In Encyclopedia Britanica, Volume 4, it is explained to
mean, 'any substance, such as creosote ~r alcohol, applied to inanimate G
objects to kill microorganisms. Disinfectants and antisepiics are alike in
that both are germicidal, but antiseptics are applied primarily to living
tissue. The ideal disinfectant would rapidly destroy bacteria, fungi, viruses,
and protozoans, would not be corrosive to surgical instruments, and would
not destroy or discolour materials on which it is used'. It thus cannot be H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.
A disputed that a disinfectant is also a killing agent. Even the Tribunal fonnd
that the goods produced by the appellant which contained high boiling tar
acid kill the bacteria in the gutters and the bathrooms. In the Report of
the Deputy Chief Chemist 't was mentioned that all above products mim
bering 14 were formulations containing high boiling tar acid as the prin-
cipal active ingredient. It then noticed definition of pesticide and
disinfectant and observed that, 'it appears from the above definition that
disinfectants are used for killing or inactivating micro-organisms, in some
literature for oils (containing high boiling tar acid) are mentioned in
pesticide manual'. But he opined that it was not clear whether the formula
tions containing tar acids, as in the case of the goods produced by the
C appellant which were used as disinfectants, will be covered broadly by the
term 'pesticides
1
'Pesticide' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary,
Second Edition, as 'a comprehensive word to include substances that will
D kill any form of pest, e.g., insects, rodents and bacteria'. The term
'pesticide' includes a large variety of compounds of diverse chemical nature
and biological activity grouped together usually on the basis of what pests
they are used to destroy or eliminate. Under the US Federal Environment
Pesticide Control Act, the term 'Pesticide' has been defined to include '(1)
any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
E repelling, or mitigating any pest, insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed,
other forms of terrestrial or aquatic plants or other forms of animal life
e.g., viruses, bacteria, or other microorganisms, which the administrator
declares to be a pest and (2) any substance or mixture of substances
intended for use as a plant regulator defoliant or desiccant' (Pesticides in
F the Indian Environment, by P.K. Gupta p.2].
'Fungicide' inhibits growth or destroys fungi pathogenic to man or
other animals or inanimate surfaces. The appellant had imported tar acid
to manufacture insecticide pesticide and fungicide. The Director General
had permitted import for this purpose. In the letter written by the appellant
G claiming exemption, it was stated that disinfectant fluids manufactured by
it were capable of being used for the purpose of destroying fungi of medical
importance.
A disinfectant which, therefore, is used for killing may broadly be
H covered in the word 'pesticide'. Disinfectants, may be of two types; one to
\.
t---
BOMBAYCHEMICALv. C.C.E.[R.M.SAHAI,J.] 375
disinfect and other to destroy the germs. The former, i.e., those products A
which are used as disinfectant for instance lavender etc. may not be
covered in the expression 'pesticide'. But those products which are used
for killing insects by use of substances such as high boiling tar acid have
the same characteristic as 'pesticide'.
Item No. 18 which was added in 1978 grants exemption to the
categories of goods which can be classified as insecticides, pesticides,
weedicides or fungicides. They have to be understood in broad sense. The
reasoning of the Tribunal that if an expression is capable of a broader and
a narrower meaning then it is the latter which could be preferred does not
appear to be correct. Where entries are descriptive of category of goods C
they have certain characteristics. Therefore, when a question arises
whether a particular good is covered in any category or not, it has to be
examined if it satisfies the characteristic which go to make it a good of that
category. And whether in trade circle it is understood as such and if it is
. a good of technical nature then whether technically it falls in the one or D
the other category. Once it is found that a particular good satisfies the test
then issue which arises for consideration is whether it should be construed
broadly or narrowly. One of the settled principles of constructio.n of an
exemption notification is that it should be construed strictly, but once a
good is found to satisfy the test by which it falls in the exemption notifica-
tion then it cannot be excluded from it by resorting to applying or constru- E
ing such notification narrowly. Item 18 is an exemption notification. As
stated earlier, mentions broad categories of goods which are entitled to
exemption. Once a good is found to fall even narrowly in any of these
categories, there appears no justification to exclude it. The test of strict
construction of exemption notification applies at the entry, that is, whether F
) a particular good is capable of falling in one or the other category but
once it falls then the exemption notification has to be construed broadly
and widely. Each of the words insecticides, pesticides, fungicides or
weedicides are understood both in the technical and common parlance as
having broad meaning. Therefore, if any goods or items satisr; the test of
being covered in either of the expression, then it is entitled to exemption. G
The broad and basic characteristic for exemption under the notification is
that the goods must have the property of killing germs and bacteria insects
, or pest and it should be understood in the common parlance as well as
being covered in one of the broad categories mentioned i!l the notification.
Since the goods produced by the appellant are capable of kilJing bacteria H
A and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions 'pesticide' and 'fungicide'
there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid notifica
tion.
In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
by the Tribunal is set aside and it is heM that the goods produced by the
B appellant from phenolic compounds and high boiling tar acid being disin
fectant fluids which have the capability of killing bacteria which are nothing
but pests, the appellant was entitled to exemption under Item 18 of the
notification issued in 1978. The appellant shall be entitled to its costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
\