ORDER
Jyoti Balasundararam, Member (J)
1. The issue in dispute in this appeal relates to the correct classification of products “Jet Fresh” and “Jem Fresh” manufactured by the appellants herein – according to the assessees the products are classifiable under CET sub-heading 3808.10 as insecticides, while the authorities below have confirmed classification of the goods under CET sub-heading 3307.49 which includes “preparations for perfuming or deodorizing including …”. According 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 Official Gazette, include in the Schedule from time to time; or (c) any preparation containing any one or 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 in bath rooms and toilets. They submit that the product is air-purifier because it purifies air by repelling insects and according to the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter Heading 38.08, insecticides include not only products for killing insects but also those having a repellent effect. The appellants, therefore, pray that the products in dispute may be held to be classifiable under CET sub-heading 3808.10 and that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal allowed.
2. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR who submits that the products are room deodorizers which can be continuously used not only in bath rooms and toilets but also in rooms, shoe-racks and wardrobes as indicated on the product label itself, unlike insecticides which can only be used for a short duration and that too, after sending out people or pet animals, etc., from the room or rooms where the insecticide is to be used and after closing doors, windows, etc., before use of the insecticides. He submits that the most commonly used insecticides like Baygon spray or HIT are used in the above manner while the product in dispute is not so used but is hung-up inside the cupboards or rooms or toilets, etc., where it remains for a continuous period. Learned DR contends that the fact that the product is composed of 99% PDCB which is an insecticide is not determinative of its classification as insecticide because PDCB in the disputed product is not used as insecticide because it is not used for killing the insects, but only for repelling them. He reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority on classification.
3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
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 in a particular manner and no warning unlike in the case of insecticides. Therefore, although the product consists mainly of PDCB, nevertheless it is deodorizer or room freshner and hence falls for classification under CET subheading 3307.49 as held by the authorities below.
5. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.