Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Page 26 of about 3,410 results (0.251 seconds)

Yogesh Dutt Vs. The State of Tamilnadu through Thiru S. Krishnamoorthy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... on 21.08.2007, the complainant inspected the shop of the 4th accused, who is a retailer and took samples of an insecticide in terms of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act, 1968) and sent one sample to the pesticide testing laboratory, madurai for analysis. the test report dated 17.09.2007 declared the ..... on 08.01.2008 and by reply dated 24.01.2008, repudiated the test report and prayed for re-analysis in terms of section 24 (3) of the act, 1968 by central insecticides laboratory, faridabad. under such circumstances, the prosecution should have been launched by the complainant before 01.11.2008 that is before the ..... 2008, he expressed his intention in no uncertain terms to adduce evidence to contradict the test report in terms of section 24(3) of the act, 1968, by getting the referee sample reanalysed by the central insecticides laboratory, faridabad. iii) admittedly, the complainant obtained sanction on 19.09.2008 and filed the complaint on 02.01 .....

Sanjay Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1460; 2009(1)WLN116

..... cognizance against the petitioner. hence this misc. petition.4. in criminal misc. petition no. 41/2008, a complaint under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 was filed by the assistant director of agriculture (extension) & insecticides inspector, hanumangarh junction, on 17.3.2006 alleging therein that the insecticide product imidachloprid 17.8% sl batch no. 2003-j-01 was misbranded. the sample of the aforesaid ..... insecticide was drawn and sent to the laboratory, which was found to be misbranded. the learned judicial magistrate, pilibanga, distt. hanumangarh .....

industrial Minerals and ors. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(112)LC152Tri(Mum.)bai

..... and a warning about its toxicity, and directions for administration of antidotes. copper sulphate figures as an insecticide in the schedule to the insecticide act, 1968. the appellant is registered with the insecticide board as a manufacturer of insecticide and it is stated that he is permitted to sell the goods only to dealers who are registered ..... 10 covers goods which are generically pesticides specifying the various categories such as insecticide rondenticide, fungicides etc. "put up in forms or packing for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles ..... asst. commissioner that the product is classifiable in heading 2833.00 of the tariff as an inorganic chemical not as claimed by the appellant as an insecticide in heading 3808.10.2. we have heard mr. a.k. saraf, the partner of the appellant and the departmental representative.3. heading 3808. .....

industrial Minerals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... and a warning about its toxicity, and directions for administration of antidotes. copper sulphate figures as an insecticide in the schedule to the insecticide act, 1968. the appellant is registered with the insecticide board as a manufacturer of insecticide and it is stated that he is permitted to sell the goods only to dealers who are registered ..... 10 covers goods which are genetically pesticides specifying the various categories such as, insecticide, rondenticide, fungicides etc. "put up in forms or packing for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles ..... asst. commissioner that the product is classifiable in heading 2833.00 of the tariff as an inorganic chemical not as claimed by the appellant as an insecticide in heading 3808.10.2. we have heard mr. a.k. saraf, the partner of the appellant and the departmental representative.3. heading 3808. .....

Shri Satya Sai Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2000)(120)ELT139TriDel

..... to the appellants, the products which are air-purifiers conform to the definition of of insecticides, which under section 3(e) of the insecticides act 1988 means : "(a) any substance specified in the schedule or (b) such other substance (including fungicides and insecticides) as the central government, may, after consultation with the board, by notification in the ..... more of such substance." they submit that both products are preparations of para-di-chloro-benzene (pdcb) which is specified in the schedule to the insecticides act, that the use of the product as clearly mentioned on the label is to guard against moths, cockroaches and insects, and the product is used ..... classification.4. the product is primarily used as air purifier, although it may incidentally act as a moth repellent. the product is for continuous use, unlike insecticides which are used for a limited period and constant use of insecticides may be deleterious to health. there are also no indications for use of the product .....

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Jawahar Lal Malhotra

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)867

..... of the appeal made a submission that he was also carrying on the business of stocking and sale of insecticides/pesticides and weedicide and for that he had been granted a licence under the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968. it was also submitted that the learned registering authority had erred in law to consider the godown of the ..... officer, who passed the order, annexure p-4.10. the second contention of learned counsel, noted above, has no merit in view of mandate contained in section 6-b of the act of 1955, which reads as follows:-'6-b:-issue of show cause notice before confiscation of essential commodity:- (1) no order confiscating any (essential commodity, ..... jurisdiction. the order passed by ado(civil) was also totally without jurisdiction. it was passed by an authority not empowered to pass it. the mandatory provisions of section 6-a were completely violated. it is well settled that if the legislature has vested the power in a particular authority, it has to be exercised by that .....

Present:- Mr. Balram Singh Advocate Vs. State of Punjab Through Inspec ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , punjab. **** daya chaudhary, j. the prayer in the present petition is for quashing of complaint no.55 dated 28.2.2006 registered under sections 3k (1).17,18,29,33 of insecticides act, 1968 and rules 1961 as well as summoning order dated 28.2.2006. briefly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed on 16 ..... .12.2003 by insecticide inspector against the petitioner by stating that respondent along with major singh brar, chief agricultural officer, muktsar visited the shop ..... months. the complaint as well as summoning order are liable to the quashed as self life of insecticides has already expired in october, 2005 and the complaint was filed after a long delay. as per provisions of section 24 (3) (4) of insecticides act, the petitioners are entitled to get the sample re- analyzed after launching the prosecution. in .....

Northern Minerals Pvt. Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT182TriDel

..... records. the appellants' contention that they have obtained certificate/licence from the central insecticides board set up under the insecticides act, 1968 for purposes of manufacturing insecticides is not by itself conclusive of the fact that all the products they are manufacturing are insecticides, fungicides, pesticides. in fact, the authority relied on by the appellants, ..... the tribunal. senior departmental representative, shri sanjeev sachdeva, on the other hand, contends that plant growth regulator is also classifiable as an insecticide under the insecticides act.5. as regards the question of limitation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no intention on the part of the ..... classifying 'dhanumon' as a plant growth regulator and, therefore, well within the limits of 5 years period under the proviso to section 11 of central excises and salt act, 1944. accordingly, we uphold the order of the additional collector dated 21-2-1990 and reject the present appeal.8. we .....

Aero Industries Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(116)LC537Tri(Mum.)bai

..... liquid, would be covered as repellents under the entry 37 to the notification which reads as mosquito coils, mats and other mosquito repellants" and the same insecticide acting and delivered in same fashion could not be a repellant and covered by that entry.(f) the appellants have tried to distinguish between ..... mosquito repellant'. further there is nothing on record which can conclusively prove the disputed product is a 'mosquito killer'.while these findings sustain the levy of duty under section 4a notification on the basis of mr.p. declared, these findings ipso facto will not be applicable to uphold the mandatory penalty equivalent to the duty. there ..... was substituted by the word "control". the substitution of the world "control" for repellant apparently has been made to place the product out of the purview of section 11a, though there was no change in the formulations and composition. since the product has been marketed as "repellant and ultimate customers by the product as repellant, .....

M/S. Goyal Trading Co. Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4830

..... date when the sample was taken. the test report was received on 9-10-91. the sample was declared misbranded. notice as required under section 24(2) of the insecticides act, 1968 was issued on 21-10-91. a perusal of the order passed by the chief judicial magistrate shows that the show-cause notice along with ..... test report was sent to the manufacturer, but no response was given from the manufacturer. the petitioner had requested for re-testing of the insecticides from central insecticides laboratory. ..... they were initiated at the fag end of the shelf life of the insecticides in question. it is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to protection under section 30(3) of the insecticides act. since the petitioner is not a manufacturer or importer of the insecticides, he is not liable for prosecution. 3. i have heard the .....