COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURAT-II versus M/S. NIRMALA DYECHEM AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 29-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURA T-11 
A 
v. 
MIS. NIRMALA DYECHEM AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: 
Tariff Headings 34. 02 and 38. 02-Domex Power Cleaner!Domex All 
round Home Cleaner-Classification of-Matter remitted to Commissioner C 
for considering whether product is having active agents, having surface active 
fimction or that is only subsidiary to its main.function as a cleaning preparation 
-Tribunal as also Commissioner have not considered rules of interpretation 
of schedule as also explanatory notes, harmonized commodity description and 
coating system which may possibly provide aids for determination of dispute- D 
However, it is made clear that in facts and circumstances of the case, extended 
period of limitation as provided for in s. I 1-A of Central Excise Act, I 944, 
shall not apply-Interpretation of Statute-Tariff Schedule-Interpretation of 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7145-7146 
of 2004. 
E 
From the final Judgment and Order No. A/604 & 605/WZB/04/C-l 
dated 22.3.2004 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 
West Regional Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. E/373 & 374/03. 
R.G. Padia, Tufail A. Khan and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. F 
Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Sanjeev Dahiya, 
Monish Panda and Rajan Narain for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
The fact of the case are that the repondent assessee is engaged in a 
manufacture of various products including a product called "Domex Power 
Cleaner/Domex All round Home Cleaner." The assessee had been classifying 
837 
G 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A this product under heading 38.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as a 
disinfectant. The claim of the Rev~nue, however, is that the aforesaid product 
is liable to be classified under the Central Excise Tariff heading 34.02. The 
question, therefore, involves in this case is whether the product "Domex 
Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner" is liable to be classified 
B under heading 34.02 as claimed by the Revenue or heading 38.02 as claimed 
by the assessee. 
c 
D 
- Heading 34.02 reads as follows: 
"34.02. Org:.mic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-active 
preparations, washing preparation (including auxiliary washing 
preparations) and cleaning preparations whether or not containing 
soap." 
Heading 38.08 reads as follows: 
"38.08. Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides anti-sprouting 
products and plant growth regulators, disinfectants and similar 
products, put up in fonns or packings for retail sale or as preparations 
or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles, 
and fly-papers.)." 
The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 22.3.2004 has held that the 
E aforesaid product is liable to be classified as a disinfectant under heading 
38.08 and not under heading 34.02. 
Before us Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf 
of the Revenue and Mr. Ravinder Narayan, learned counsel appearing on 
F behalf of the assessee, have advanced various arguments. 
We need not go into those arguments in great details in view of the 
order proposed to be passed by us. The question which falls for our 
consideration, in our opinion, should be considered having regard to the rival 
contentions of the parties, namely, whether the product is principally used as 
G disinfectant or as a cleaning preparation. 
H 
We may also place on record the submission of Mr. Ravindra Narayan 
that it is sold in undiluted fonn also and, therefore, may be put in an appropriate 
heading for the purpose of classification as it is manufactured on the said 
basis, and hence it should be classified as such and not on the condition in 
•. 
... , 
... 
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, SURAT-ll v. NIRMALA DYECHEM 839 
which it is used, which may be in diluted form. On the other hand, we may A 
also mention the submission of Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel for the 
Revenue that the word 'disinfectant' in heading 38.08 has to be interpreted 
noscitur a sociis, which means that it has to take colour from the preceding 
words like insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. Dr. Padia's 
submission is that the expression 'cide' means to kill, and hence the things 
mentioned in heading 38.08 are .all things meant for killing (genns, animals, B 
etc.) and t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.