Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(11)ECC194
..... namely (i) ethrel plant growth regulator (ii) ethrel latex stimulant (iii) fruitone and (iv) transplantons were classified as pesticides by the government of india under the insecticides act, 1968, section 3(e)(i)(ii) schedule - appendix i items 219 and 258.notification no. 55/75 does not give an explanation as to what is an ..... and merit exemption under notification no. 55/75 dated 1.3.1975 as amended. the appellant also pleaded that as per 4 schedules of the government of india insecticides act,1968 the said four products were pesticides. the appellant had also placed reliance on a letter dated 8.4.1982 from the under secretary, government of india, department of ..... cognate subject. she has pleaded that in view of the supreme court judgment cited by her, the mere fact that the products manufactured by the appellant fall in insecticides act, 1968, the revenue should treat the same as pesticide and the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of notification no. 62/78. she has referred to page .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(63)ECC485
..... the appellants that in the absence of any definition of pesticide or insecticide in the central excise act we could safely seek guidance from its definition as given in section 3e of the insecticides act, 1968. since the appellants have produced certificates of registration of insecticides covering anaa 4.5% solution issued to them under section (3) of the insecticides act and they were manufacturing it under licence to manufacture ..... insecticides covering this item of technical grade granted under rule 9(2) of the insecticides rules and were registered with the govt .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(166)ELT366TriDel
..... to the appellant by plant protection section of the department of agriculture, u.p. under the insecticides act. under the schedule of insecticides licence for manufacture the product in question is shown as item no. 56.certificate of registration of insecticides granted to the appellant under section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 contains details of the use of ..... and also by m/s.hindustan antibiotics ltd. pimpri, pune (a government undertaking) since long under licences obtained under the insecticides act 1968.reliance is placed on a declaration signed by hindustan antibiotics ltd. duly certified by excise department stating the use of said product as pesticide ..... points out that the product is being manufactured under licence issued to it under the insecticides act. this particular product is shown as serial no. 56 in the licence. the said licence has been issued by the plant protection section of the department of agriculture, u.p., lucknow, by the director, agriculture licensing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(14)ECC169
..... his order dated 14-7-1983, inter alia, held that insecticides had the same meaning as defined in section 3 of insecticides act, -1968. the schedule annexed to the insecticides act, 1968 did not include the two products dbp and dmp as insecticides. the respondents did not hold registration under section 9(1) or licence under section 13(1) of the act ibid and for these reasons the two products could not ..... be considered insecticide within the meaning of the notification and merit exemption .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC144
..... insecticides directed them to register their product under the insecticides act and to comply with the provisions of insecticides act; that appellants in their letter dated 27-11-1975 urged that their product was not an insecticide as per section 38 of ..... : (i) inducing flowering and preventing shedding of buds, flowers and fruits; 3. shri s.n. parikh, ld. advocate, submitted that the impugned product is an insecticide as the same has been specified as insecticide under the schedule to the insecticides act, 1968; that the said schedule was amended on 9-1-1975 and naphthylactic acid and its derivatives was added; that the central board of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(11)ECC179
..... shri sundar rajan also relied on scientific or technical works such as the "glossary of chemical terms" and the "encyclopaedia of chemical technology" and also the insecticides act, 1968.23. thus, both sides, between them, placed before us a large number of definitions or explanations of the various terms in question. we may now ..... substance specified in the schedule to the act, or such other substances (including fungicides and weedicides) as the central government may subsequently ..... out, this section of the book dealt with chemicals in agriculture.therefore, no general inference in the manner required by shri sundar rajan could be drawn on the basis thereof.7. shri sundar rajan then referred to the insecticides act of 1968 and pointed out that under section 3(e) of the act, "insecticide" would mean any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(27)ECC174
..... on the supreme court's judgment in msco pvt. ltd. v. union of india and ors. reported in 1985 (19) elt 15 (sc), held that the insecticides act, 1968 or the schedule thereto would not govern the meaning of the expression in serial no. 18 of the notification no.55/75 (supra). in fact, in the present ..... is true. as we have noted, the collector has relied on the evidence placed before him by the department, his own personal experience and the provisions of the insecticides act but has not discussed the mass of evidence produced by the appellants.14. the learned departmental representative, on the other hand, submits that the active ingredient, pyrethrin ..... to contend that the explanatory notes to the brussels nomenclature and the statutory chapter and section notes of the tariff, are not relevant for interpretation of exemption notification. we have, in the present case, to ascertain the scope of the term "insecticide". we have noted several pieces of evidence, one of them being the h.s.n .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT546TriDel
..... curing a disease.2.3 he emphasised that licel is an insecticide and is registered under the insecticides act, 1968. section 3 of the said act defines insecticides as including any preparation containing a notified substance. licel contains malathion which is notified under the insecticides act; under section 5, registration is to be granted by a board which includes ..... the ld. counsel finally submitted that pharmasia case is distinguishable since mediker was manufactured under drug licence whereas the impugned product licel is manufactured under insecticides act; that the issue in pharmasia case was whether medikar was classifiable under chapter 30 or 33 of ceta and not under chapter 38; that licel ..... tariff which is governed by different principles and is not to be guided by the fact whether the product is registered under the drugs act or under the insecticides act.3. shri l.p. asthana, ld. advocate submitted that the impugned product is a non-alcoholic natural herbal oil base lice killer. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(134)ELT294TriDel
..... was not a plant growth regulator to be classified under th 38.08 as held by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as it did not fall within the purview of the insecticides act, 1968. the cytokinin present in the seaweed extract used in the product was a growth promoter for plants and not a growth regulator as found by the collector. the ca ..... holding it to be a plant growth regulator on the reasoning of the adjudicating authority.he submitted that, by the mere reason of the product not being covered under the insecticides act, it could not be held that the product was not classifiable as plant growth regulator. it was not the revenue's case that plantozyme of the assessees was an ..... sl. nos. 2, 3 and 5 was confirmed as these scns were found to have been issued within the normal period of six months prescribed under section 11a(1) of the central excises and salt act (cesa). the assessees filed appeal no. e/836/94-c against the collector's decision as per the above order dated 31-12-1994 on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC173Tri(Delhi)
..... submission that the product cannot be classified as plant growth regulator as it is not covered under the insecticides act, 1968 as it is not the case of the revenue that the impugned product is an insecticide; further the product is not designed to control insect life that is harmful to man, either directly ..... for ease of reference only; for legal purpose, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.heading 38.08 applies to "insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, antisprouting products and plant growth regulators; disinfectants and similar products". the heading does not exclude the plant ..... does not mention anywhere the products which are vegetable based. there is no substance in these submissions and findings. both chapter 31 and 38 fall under section vi, the title of which is "products of the chemical or allied industries". if the contention of the respondent is accepted, the impugned product will .....
Tag this Judgment!