ORDER
G. Sankaran, President
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-1126/BD-745/85 dated 28-11-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
2. The issue in this appeal is whether ‘Paushamycin’ which is a mixture of oxytetracycline and streptomycin, was eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982. Both the ingredients are antibiotics and the preparation is used as an anti-bacterial plant spray for killing or inhibiting bacteria.
3. The manufacturer’s literature on the product states that Paushamycin controls bacterial plant diseases effectively. It is said to be an effective anti-bacterial plant spray formulation recommended for control of a number of bacterial plant diseases. The active materials of Paushamycin being systemic, it is stated, are absorbed very easily by plant tissue.
4. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 20-5-1985, held that Paushamycin was an anti-bacterial substance and not an insecticide and, therefore, not entitled for exemption under the relevant notification for the time being in force during the relevant period, that is, 1979 to 1982 and January 83 to August 1984.
5. In appeal, this order was set aside and the demand created by the Assistant Collector was also set aside.
6. The learned DR’s contention is that though the term ‘pesticides’ also takes within its sweep bactericides (see page 35 of the respondents’ paper book, extracted from “The New Pesticide User’s Guide” by Bert Bohmont), it would not be entitled for duty exemption in terms of the notification. For this contention, he relies on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Agromore Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 1987 (28) ELT 409. The learned advocate for the respondents, however, contends that streptomycin and tetracycline are to be found in the schedule in the Insecticides Act, 1968. He also relies OH the certificate of registration issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage, which shows that streptocycline (Paushamycin) has been registered as an insecticide for manufacture by the respondents. He relies on the publication of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, New Delhi under the title “Minimal National Standards-Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation Industry–Comprehensive Industry Document Series COINDs/15/1985-86” in which streptocycline is shown in the statement listing the names of the registered technical grade pesticides. It is also shown at sub-serial number 41 under serial number 129 (“insecticides, pesticides and weedicides”). Part-A, Appendix 3 of Volume I of Import and Export Policy April 1985-March 1988 (Imports and Export Promotion).
7. We have considered the submissions of both sides. In the instant case it has been shown by the evidence produced by the respondents that streptocycline or ‘Paushamycin’ as it is called by the respondents is a bactericide used on plants. Bactericides are covered by the expression ‘pesticides’. The discussions in the Agromore case revolved round the question whether a disinfectant could be said to come within the scope of the expression ‘insecticides’. Those discussions are not, in our view, relevant or applicable to the facts of the present case. Here we have what is evidently a bactericide or a pesticide. Pesticides are covered by Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 and other relevant notifications. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
8. Since the Collector (Appeals) had extended relief to the respondents, there was no cause for the so-called ‘cross-objection’ which we have treated as only the respondents’ written submissions.