M/S. BOMBAY CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY I, BOMBAY

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 18-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. BOMBAY CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY I, BOMBAY 
APRIL 18, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA!, S.B. MAIMUDAR AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act/Rules, 1944: Rule 8( l}-First 
Schedule-Item 68-Notification No. 55/75 CE dated 1.3.1975 as amended 
A 
B 
by Notification No. 62178 dated 1.3.1978-Disinfectant fluids--Wliether falls 
under item no. 18 of the amended Notification and entitled to exemp-
C 
tion-He/d : Yes. 
The appellant has been manufacturing disinfectant fluids and 
claimed exemption under Notification No. 55175-CE dated 1.3.1975, as 
amended by notification No. 62178 dated 1.3.1978. As per the amended 
notification item 18 was added which included insecticides, pesticides, 
weedicides and fungicides. The Assistant Collector negatived the claim and 
held that the disinfectant fluids produced by the appellant did not have 
the property of killing any insect or pest and therefore could not be covered 
in the exemption notification. The appellate authori.ty held that in common 
parlance the products of the appellant were nothing but fungicides. 
On appeal, the Tribunal held that the exemption notification being 
meant to cover particular formation with well defined uses and especially 
for killing insects, they cannot be equated or interpreted to include disin-
fectants which are preparations for general disinfection purposes and used 
D 
E 
in bathrooms, gutters, Door cleaning etc. It also held that though the 
F 
disinfectant fluids were produced by the appellant from phenolic com-
pounds (tar acids) could destroy bacteria and fungi, this being a part o: 
function as disinfectant fluids, it cannot be classified as fungicide or 
pesticide. 
The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the Tribunal's 
order. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD : 1. The goods produced by the appellant from phinolic H 
.369 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A compounds and high boiling tar acid being disinfectant 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. 
(376-8] 
2.1. It cannot be disputed that a disinfectant is also a killing agent. 
B Even the Tribunal found 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 it was mentioned 
that the products were formulations containing high boiling tar acid as 
the principal active ingredient. (373-H, 374-A] 
c 
2.2. A disinfectant which is used for killing may broadly be covered 
in the word 'pesticide'. Disinfectants, may be of two types; one to disinfect 
and other to destroy the germs. The former, i.e., those products 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 
D by use of substances such as high boiling tar acid have the same charac· 
teristic as 'pesticide'. (374-H, 375-A] 
· 
3.1. Where entries are descriptive of category of goods they have 
certain characteristics. Therefore, when a question arises whether a par· 
ticular good is covered in any category or not, it has to be examined If if 
E 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 the other 
category. Once it is found that a particular good satisfies the test then the 
issue which arises for consideration is whether it should be construed 
F 
broadly or narrowly. One of the settled principles of construction 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· 
lion then it cannot be excluded from it by resorting to applying or constru· 
ing such notification narrowly. (375-C to El 
G 
3.2. 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 satisfy the test of 
being covered in either of the expression, then it is entitled to exemption. 
The broad and basic characteristic for exemption under the notification 
H is that the goods must have tbe property of killing germs 

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