/2023 INSC 0258/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 
                                                                           
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1335 OF 2010
M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd.          ..Appellant
    
VERSUS
Commissioner Commercial 
Taxes & Ors.       ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  1  of  32

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned  judgment   and  order  dated  17.12.2008
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
in   OT   Appeal   No.6   of   2006   by   which   the   High
Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has
upheld   the   order   passed   by   the   Commissioner
with   respect   to   the   classification   of   the   goods   in
question,   the   assessee   has   preferred   the   present
appeal.
2. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
issue   pertains   to   the   classification   of   the
appellant’s   products   namely   (i)   Mosquito   Mats,
Coils   and   Vaporizers;   and   (ii)   Mortein   Insect
Killers;   (iii)   Harpic   Toilet   Cleaner   and   Lizol   Floor
Cleaners; and (iv) Dettol Antiseptic Liquid for the
purposes   of   Kerala   VAT   Act,   2003   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “KVAT   Act”).     It   was   the   case   on
behalf of the appellant that the products at (i) to
(iii) were classifiable under Entry No. 44(5) of the
III   Schedule   to   the   Kerala   VAT   Act   as   being
'pesticides,   insecticides'   corresponding   to   HSN
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  2  of  32

Code   3808   and   therefore   subject   to   VAT   at   the
rate   of   4%.   With   respect   to   the   product   at   (iv)
hereinabove,   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   that   'Dettol   Antiseptic   Liquid'   is
correctly   classifiable   under   Entry   36(8)   (h)   (vi)
being   medicaments   corresponding   to   HSN   Code
3004.90   of   the   III   Schedule,   and   thus   also
subject to tax at the rate of 4%.
2.1 However,   the   Commissioner   of   Commercial
Taxes,   rejected   the   contention   of   the   appellant
holding   that   the   products   (i)   Mortein   Mosquito
Coil,   Mat   and   Liquid   Vaporizer   is   classifiable
under   Entry   66   of   Notification   SRO   82/06   dated
21.01.2006   issued   under   Section   6(1)(d)   of   the
Kerala   VAT   Act   which   covers   "Mosquito
Repellants,   electric   or   electronic   mosquito
repellants, gadgets and insect  repellants, devices
and parts and accessories thereof” corresponding
to HSN Code 8516 79 20; (ii) Mortein Insect Killer
is   subject   to   tax   at   the   rate   of   12.5%   under   the
residuary   entry   i.e.   under   SL   No.103   of   the
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  3  of  32

Notification   SRO   82/06   on   the   ground   that   they
are not  specifically   classifiable under  the Second
and the Third Schedule; (iii) Harpic Toilet Cleaner
and   Lizol   Floor   Cleaner   are   classifiable   under   SI
No. 27(4) of the said Notification SRO 82/06; and
(iv)   Dettol   Antiseptic   Liquid   is   classifiable   under
Entry 103 of the said Notification SRO 82/06 i.e.
residual   entry   on   the   ground   that   the   said
product is not in the nature of a medicine having
therapeutic   or   prophylactic   properties,   but   is
used only for cleaning purposes.
2.2 The   order   passed   by   the   Commissioner   of
Commercial   Taxes   holding   the   above   was   the
subject   matter   of   appeal   before   the   High   Court.
The   High   Court   by   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   confirming
the   order   passed   by   the   Commissioner   of
Commercial Taxes.   The impugned judgment and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   the   subject
matter of the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  4  of  32

2.3 Before   we   consider   the   submissions   made   on
behalf   of   the   respective   parties   the   relevant
entries   relied   upon   by   the   respective   parties   are
required to be referred to which are as under:
“Entry 44 of the Third Schedule reads as follows:
Sl. No. Description HSN Code
44 Fertilizers,   pesticides,
weedicides,   insecticides,
fungicides,   herbicides,
rodenticides,   anti­
sprouting   products   and
plant   growth   regulators,
biofertilizers,
micronutrients   and
similar products
5 Pesticides,   weedicides,
insecticides,   3808
fungicides,   herbicides,
rodenticides,   anti­
sprouting   products   and
plant   growth   regulators,
and   similar   products
other than micro products 3808
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  5  of  32

(d)   Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of the Third Schedule reads
as under:
Sl. No. Description HSN
Code
36 Drugs,   Medicines   and
Bulk   Drugs   including
Ayurvedic,   Unani,   and
Homoeopathic
medicine   but
excluding   mosquito
repellants   and   those
specifically   mentioned
in   First   Schedule   and
those   notified   under
clause   (d)   of   sub­
section   (1)   of   section
6.
8 Medicaments
(excluding   goods   of
HSN   heading   nos.
3002,   3005,   or   3006)
consisting   of   mixed   or
unmixed   products   for
therapeutic   or
prophylactic   uses,   put
up   in   measured   doses
(including those in the
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  6  of  32

form   of   transdermal
administration
systems)   or   in   forms
or   packings   for   retail
sale
h Other
(vi) Medicaments   other
than   those   given   in
sub­entries (i) to (v) 3004.90
Entry   66   of   Notification   No.   SRO   No.   82/2006,
G.O.(P) No. 4/2006/TD Dated 21 st
 January 2006.
LIST OF GOODS
SL.NO. Description of
goods HSN Code
(1) (2) (3)
66 Mosquito   repellents,
electric   or   electronic
mosquito   repellents,
gadgets   and   insect
repellents,   devices
and   parts   and
accessories thereof 8516.79.20
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  7  of  32

3. Shri   Siddharth   Bawa,   learned   counsel   has
appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri C.K.
Sasi,   learned   counsel   has   appeared   on   behalf   of
the respondents.
4. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   the   High
Court   has   materially   erred   in   not   accepting   the
case on behalf of the appellant that the products
item   nos.1   to   3   hereinabove   shall   be   classifiable
under Entry 44(5) of III Schedule of KVAT Act.
4.1 It is submitted that the High Court has materially
erred   in   accepting   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
Commissioner that the aforesaid products nos. (i)
to   (iii)   shall   fall   under   Item   No.66   of   SRO
82/2006   and   therefore   liable   to   be   taxed   at
12.5%
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has
also erred in holding that the product Dettol will
fall under the residual entry i.e. Sl.No.103 of SRO
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  8  of  32

82/2006   and   not   under   Entry   36(8)   (h)   (vi)   of   III
Schedule of the KVAT Act.
4.3 Now   so   far   as   the   product   Mortein   range   &
Mortein   Spray   is   concerned,   it   is   vehemently
submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   even   after
introduction   of   SRO   82/2006,   Mortein   range   &
Mortein   Spray   continue   to   be   classifiable   as
insecticides,  as   they   are  manufactured   under   an
insecticides license issued under the Insecticides
Act.   It is submitted that the  Mortein  Spray  kills
insects, hence even according to the respondents’
interpretation,   Mortein   Spray   cannot   fall   under
Item   No.66   of   SRO/2006,   as   Item   no.66   deals
only with Mosquito repellants. 
4.4 In   support   of   his   submissions   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   heavily
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case
of   Ponds   India   Ltd.   vs.   CTT  (2008)  8   SCC   369
(Para 35).   He    has also relied upon the following
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  9  of  32

decisions   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   and
Karnataka High Court ;  Knight Queen Industries
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP, 2005 SCC Online All
1214   (Para   23   to   36);   Sl.   No.   22   @   page   282­
297;   Order   dated   14.07.2006   passed   by   this
Court   in   State   of   UP   vs.   Knight   Queen
Industries   Pvt.   Ltd.;   Sl.   No.   23   @   page   298­
300;   Ashok   Agencies   vs.   State   of   Karnataka
2008   SCC   Online   Kar   141   (Para   8   to   12);   Sl.
No. 24 @ page 301­307; State of Karnataka vs.
Godrej  Consumer  Products  Ltd.  (2014) 80 Kar
LJ 328 (Para 15); Sl. No. 25 @ page 308­313.
4.5 It   is   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the appellant that it is a case on behalf
of the respondents that from 21.01.2006 Mortein
range   and   Mortein   Spray   would   fall   under   Sl.
No.66   (mosquito   repellant),   which   is   the   specific
entry   and   subject   to   VAT   at   12.5%   and
insecticide   (Entry   44(5)   of   the   III   Schedule)   is   a
general entry.  
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  10  of  32

It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   issue   of
classification   between   two   competing   entries   i.e.
Entry   44(5)(insecticide)   and   Sl.   No.66   (mosquito
repellant)   introduced   w.e.f.   21.01.2006.     It   is
submitted   that   therefore   according   to   Revenue,
the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   with   respect   of
Mortein   repellant   /Moretin   range   shall   not   be
applicable,   as   the   entries   under   the   other   VAT
Acts,   do   not   have   a   specific   entry   for   “mosquito
repellents”.
4.6 It is submitted that however the appellant rightly
relied   upon   Entry   44(5)   of   the   said   Schedule
claiming the tax at 4%.
4.7 So far as the product Harpic & Lizol is concerned,
it   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the
State   of   Kerala   issued   a   notification   dated
24.10.2006   retrospectively   effective   from
07.01.2006   omitting   HSN   Code   3808   from   Entry
44(5) of III Schedule of KVAT Act.  It is submitted
that Harpic & Lizol would still continue to fall in
Entry 44(5) even after deletion of HSN Code 3808,
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  11  of  32

as   they   are   disinfectants   under   the   Drugs   &
Cosmetics   Act/Rules   and   manufactured   under
the   licence   granted   as   a   disinfectant,   under   the
said   act.     In   support   of   the   above,   he   has   relied
upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Ponds   India   Ltd.   (supra)   and   Bombay
Chemicals   Pvt.   Ltd.   vs.   CCE   1995   Supp.   (2)
SCC 646  and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh
High   Court   in   the   case   of   Reckitt   Benckiser
India   Ltd.   vs.   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   in   Tax
Revision Case No.10 of 2007.
4.8 Now so far as the product Dettol is concerned, it
is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the
Dettol   is   an   antiseptic   liquid,   manufactured
under   a   Drug   License   and   it   prevents   infection.
It   is   submitted   that   it   is   considered   as   an
essential drug and hence its price was controlled
under  DPCO and the MRP of Dettol continues to
be monitored under DPCO, 2013.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  12  of  32

4.9 It is submitted that  Dettol falls under  HSN  3004
90 specifically incorporated in Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of
Schedule   III,   therefore   Dettol   is   classifiable   as   a
drug/medicine   under   Entry   36(8)(h)(vi)   of
Schedule   III.     It   is   submitted   that   in   Note   23   of
the   Rules   of   interpretation   under   Entry   36   of
Schedule   III,   the   only   exclusion   is   dietary   food,
diabetic   food,   food   supplements,   medicated
soaps, blood albumin etc. are not excluded.
4.10 It   is   further   submitted   that   most   importantly
HSN Code was not deleted from Entry 36(8)(h)(vi)
of   Schedule   III,   even   though   by   virtue   of
notification   K.G.   Ext.NO.1670   dated   24.10.2006
(retrospectively   effective   from   01.07.2006),   HSN
Code   was   deleted   in   Entry   44(5)   of   Schedule   III
under which the appellant has classified Mortein
range,   Mortein   spray,   Harpic   &   Lizol.     It   is
submitted   that   therefore   the   Dettol   continue   to
fall under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi).
4.11 It is further submitted that the active ingredients
of   Dettol   are   Chloroxylenol   IP,   Terpineol   BP,
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  13  of  32

Alcohol   Absolute   IP   (denatured)   and   it   is   an
antiseptic   having   germicidal   properties;   it   kills
germs,   bacteria   and   it   prevents   infection
therefore   it   is   applied   on   wounds,   cuts,   grazes,
bites   and   stings   and   is   used   in   hospitals   for
surgical   use,   medical   use   and   midwifery,   due   to
therapeutic & prophylactic properties.
4.12 It is submitted that this Court in the case of  ICPA
Health   Products   (P)   Ltd.   vs.   CCE,   Vadodara
(2004)   4   SCC   481   has   held   that   the   said
products   are   used   for   disinfecting   the   skin   prior
to   surgery.     It   is   submitted   that   as   per   Concise
Oxford   Dictionary,   9 th
  Edition   the   term
“prophylactic” would mean, “intending to prevent
diseases,   a   preventive   medicine   or   course   of
action”.     It   is   submitted   that   as   the   aforesaid
products   are   used   as   a   cleanser   for   cleaning   of
wounds   and   abrasions   and   minor   cuts   and   to
disinfect   the   skin   prior   to   surgery,   they   have
therapeutic   and   prophylactic   properties.     It   is
submitted   that   applying   the   legal   principles
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  14  of  32

enunciated by this Court qua Dettol, the Dettol is
a drug/medicine.
4.13 It is further submitted that this Court in the case
of   Sujanil   Chemo   Industries   vs.   CCE   &
Customs,   Pune   (2005)   4   SCC   189   (para   6)   in
the context of Licel used for killing lice in human
hair   has   held   that   any   medicine   which   kills
disease   or   is   a   palliative   or   curative   is
therapeutic.   It   is   submitted   that   Licel   cures   the
infection   of   lice   in   human   hair   and   is   thus
therapeutic.     It   is   submitted   that   applying   the
same the Dettol is also a medicament.
4.14 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   case   of   Ponds   India
Ltd. (supra)  in respect of the classification under
the   Trade   Tax/VAT   Laws   this   Court   has   taken
into   consideration   the   definition   of   ‘Drug’   as
defined   under   the   Drugs   &   Cosmetics   Act,   1940
and the fact that the product is sold under a drug
licence   since   drug   or   medicine   is   not   defined
under   the   Trade   Tax/VAT   Laws.     It   is   submitted
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  15  of  32

that   the   Dettol   is   manufactured   under   a   drug
licence   issued   under   the   Drugs   &   Cosmetics
Rules   and   its   price   has   been   regulated   by   the
National   Pharmaceutical   Pricing   Authority   under
Drug   Price   Control   Orders   issued   from   time   to
time including DPCO, 2013.
4.15 It   is   submitted   that   Rule   123   of   the   Drugs   &
Cosmetics   Rules   provides   for   certain   exceptions
to   the   drugs   falling   under   Schedule   K   to   the
extent   provided   therein.     Entry   39   deals   with
Liquid   Antiseptics   for   household   use.     The
appellant submits that Dettol being an antiseptic
falls   under   Entry   39   of   Schedule   K   provided
under Rule 123 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules.
It   is   submitted   that   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Ponds   India   Ltd.   (supra)   has   considered   the
aforesaid   aspect   and   had   held   that   Vaseline
White   Petroleum   Jelly   to   be   a   drug   as   it   falls
under   Entry   28   of   Schedule   K   provided   under
Rule 123 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act/Rules.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  16  of  32

4.16 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   impugned
judgment   fails   to   consider   the   well   settled
principles of classification which are fundamental
to   any   matter   relating   to   classification   under   a
taxing statute namely viz. (a) plain meaning to be
given to the taxing provision; (b) burden to prove
classification   in   a   particular   entry   is   always   on
the   Revenue;   (c)     any   ambiguity   has   to   be
resolved in favour of the assessee and in case of a
reasonable   doubt,   the   construction   most
beneficial   to   the   assessee   must   be   adopted;   (d)
specific   entry   would   override   a   residuary   entry;
and (e) resort to residuary entry is to be taken as
a last measure, only when by liberal construction
the   specific   entry   cannot   cover   the   goods   in
question.
4.17 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   Gawahati   High
Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court in the
case   of   Reckitt   Benckiser   India   Ltd.   vs.
Assistant   Commercial   Taxes   Officer   &   Ors.,
STR­11/2012   have   held   Dettol   to   be   a   drug
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  17  of  32

under   the   respective   entries   of   Assam   VAT   Act
and   Rajasthan   VAT   Act   and   have   rejected   the
submission   of   the   Revenue   in   those   States   that
the   Dettol   falls   under   the   residuary   entry.     It   is
submitted   that   the   SLPs   against   the   decision   of
the   Rajasthan   High   Court   by   the   Revenue   have
been dismissed by this Court.
5. Making   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the
above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
6. While   opposing   the   present   appeal   Shri   Sasi,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
Revenue   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the
product   Mortein   range   and   Mortein   Spray   would
not   be   classifiable   under   Entry   No.   44(5)   as
insecticides   as   contended   on   behalf   of   the
appellant.  It is submitted that “Mortein Mosquito
coil,   mat   and   liquid   vaporizer”   cannot   be
classifiable   as   an   insecticide   and   the   same   is
unsustainable   in   view   of   the   decision   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Sonic   Electrochem   vs.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  18  of  32

STO,   (1998)   6   SCC   397   wherein   this  Court   has
held   that   the   product   ‘Jet   Mat’   which   is   a   trade
name   containing   ‘d­Allethrin   4%’   and   is
commercially known as “Mosquito Repellent Mat”
is   a   mosquito   repellent   notwithstanding   the   fact
that it not only repels the mosquitoes but also is
capable of killing the mosquitoes and it is difficult
to   hold   that   it   is   an   insecticide.     It   is   submitted
that the product “Mortein Mosquito Coil, mat and
liquid   vaporizer”   would   definitely   come   under
Entry 66 “Mosquito Repellent”.
6.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant   –   assessee   is
relying   Entry   44(5)   in   support   of   their   case
products   Mortein   range   and   Mortein   Spray   shall
fall   as   insecticides   under   Entry   44(5).     It   is
submitted   that   Entry   44   related   to   products
which   are   used   in   agricultural   operations.     It   is
submitted that all the products in that Entry are
used   in   the   agricultural   field   in   relation   to
growing   of   agricultural   products   and   controlling
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  19  of  32

of   pets,   insecticides   etc.   which   attacked   the
plants.
6.2 It   is   submitted   that   the   product   such   as   Harpic
Toilet   Cleaner   and   Lizol   Floor   Cleaner   are   not
used   in   relation   to   controlling   pets   and
insecticides   in   the   agricultural   field.     It   is
submitted   that   the   name   of   these   products
contains   the   words   “Toilet   Cleaner   and   Floor
Cleaner”.   It is submitted that the use of “Harpic
Toilet   Cleaner”   and   “Lizol   Floor   Cleaner”   is
exclusively   for   cleaning   of   toilet   and   floor
respectively   and   therefore   cannot   be   treated   as
insecticide.
6.3 It  is  submitted  that   so  far  as  the  reliance  placed
upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Bombay   Chemicals   Pvt.   Ltd.   (supra)   is
absolutely   misplaced  and   shall  not   be   applicable
in   the   facts   of   the   instant   case.     It   is   submitted
that   in   the   case   of   Bombay   Chemical   Pvt.   Ltd.
(supra)   this   Court   was   dealing   with   Entry
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  20  of  32

“Insecticides,   Pesticides,   Weedicides   and
Fungicides   etc.”   under   the   Central   Exercise   Salt
Act, 1944.   It is submitted that the said Entry is
different from Entry 44 of the KVAT Act which are
products exclusively dealing with the products in
agricultural operations.
6.4 Now so far as the product Dettol antiseptic liquid
is   concerned,   it   is   submitted   that   the   same
cannot   be   classified   as   an   item   used   for
Medicament for therapeutic or prophylactic uses.
It   is   submitted   that   a   medicament   is   an   item
used for therapeutic or prophylactic treatment for
prevention  and  cure  of  diseases.     It  is  submitted
that   the   High   Court   has   specifically   found   that
the   appellant   has   no   case   that   Dettol   is   able   to
prevent   or   cure   any   disease   and   therefore   has
rightly held the Dettol is not a medicament.   It is
submitted   that   therefore   the   Dettol   would   fall
under residuary Entry.
7. Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss
the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  21  of  32

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties at length.
9. So   far   as   the   product   Mosquito   Mats,   Coils   and
Vaporizers   and   Mortein   Insect   Killers   are
concerned,   it   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   that   the   said   products   would   fall   in
Entry   44(5)   of   III   Schedule   of   KVAT   Act   and
would fall under HSN Code 3808.  Therefore, it is
the   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the
aforesaid   products   shall   be   classifiable   as
insecticides   under   Entry   44(5)   and   therefore
chargeable to tax at 4%.   It is the case on behalf
of   the   appellant   that   as   the   aforesaid   products
are   manufactured   under   the   licence   granted
under the Insecticides Act and therefore the said
products   can   be   said   to   be   insecticides
classifiable under Entry 44(5).  The aforesaid has
no substance.  It is required to be noted that HSN
Code   3808   has   been   deleted   from   Entry   44(5)
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  22  of  32

w.e.f.   01.07.2006   and   from   21.01.2006   the
aforesaid   products   would   fall   under   Sl.   No.66
namely ‘Mosquito repellant’, which is the specific
entry   and   subject   to   VAT   at   12.5%.     The
insecticides   under   Entry   44(5)   therefore   can   be
said   to   be   a   general   entry.     Once   there   is   a
specific entry  the ‘Mosquito Repellant’, thereafter
one   is   not   required   to   go   to   the   definition   under
another Act namely Insecticides Act.   Sl.No.66 of
Notification SRO 82/06 dated 21.01.2006 issued
under Section 6(1)(d) of the Kerala VAT Act which
covers "Mosquito Repellants”.
9.1 Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
Entry 44(5) which includes insecticides relates to
products   which   are   used   in   agricultural
operations.     All   the   products   in   the   Entry   are
used   in   the   agricultural   field   in   relation   to
growing   of   agricultural   products   and   controlling
of   pets,   insecticides   etc.   which   are   attacking   the
plants.  Therefore, in view of the specific Entry 66
of   Notification   SRO   82/06   dated   21.01.2006   the
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  23  of  32

aforesaid   products   namely   Mosquito   Repellants,
electric or electronic mosquito repellants, gadgets
and   insect   repellants,   devices   and   parts   and
accessories   thereof   are   rightly   classified   as
Mosquito   repellants.   Now   so   far   as   the   reliance
placed upon the decision of this Court in the case
of   Bombay   Chemicals   Pvt.   Ltd.   (supra)   is
concerned,   the   said   decision   shall   not   be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand while
dealing with the specific entries under KVAT Act.
It   was   a   case   under   the   Central   Excise   Act   and
the Entry corresponding to the Excise Act.  In the
present   case   under   the   KVAT   Act   there   is   a
specific   Entry   Mosquito   repellant   so   far   as   the
product electric or electronic mosquito repellents,
gadgets   and   insect   repellents,   devices   and   parts
and   accessories   thereof   are   concerned   and
therefore   the   said   specific   entry   shall   be
applicable   in   any   case,   the   same   cannot   be   said
to be insecticides. We are in complete agreement
with   the   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   that
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  24  of  32

Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers and Mortein
Insect   Killers   products   shall   not   be   classifiable
under Entry 44(5) as insecticides. 
9.2 Now   so   far   as   the   products   Harpic   and   Lizol   is
concerned,   it   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   that   the   same   is   classifiable   under
Entry   44(5)   of   III   Schedule   of   KVAT   Act   ­   HSN
Code   3808   and   the   said   products   are   also
classifiable as insecticides. 
9.3 However,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   after
introduction of SRO 82/06 w.e.f. 22.01.2006 the
Harpic and Lizol would fall under Sl. No. 27(4) of
SRO 82/06.  Sl. No.27(4) thus is a specific entry.
9.4 Even the High Court has also considered the use
of the aforesaid two products.   The aforesaid two
products   are   used   for   cleaning   the   floor   and
toilet.  As noted by the High Court and even from
the   product   description   and   the   nature   of   use
stated   in   the   products,   the   said   two   items   are
essentially   used   as   stain   removers   and
deodorants.     Merely   because   they   kill   germs   as
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  25  of  32

well,   the   same   cannot   be   said   to   be   insecticides
classifiable   under   Entry   44(5).     What   is   required
to   be   considered   is   the   dominant   use   which   is
cleaning   and   removal   of   stains   of   floor   and   the
toilet.   Thereafter,   the   same   shall   not   fall   under
Entry   44(5)   –   HSN   Code   No.3808   as   insecticides
or   disinfectant.     Entry   27(4)   of   SRO   No.   82   of
2006   is   with   respect   to   stain   busters,   stain
removers,   abir,   blue   and   all   kinds   of   cleaning
powder   and   liquids   including   floor   and   toilet
cleaning.     In   that   view   of   the   matter   Entry   27(4)
being   a   specific   entry   the   same   shall   be
applicable and the aforesaid two products namely
Harpic   and   Lizol   shall   not   be   classifiable   under
general   Entry   44(5)   and   in   any   case   the   same
cannot   be   classifiable   under   Entry   44(5)   as
insecticides.   We are in complete agreement with
the   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   that   the
product Harpic and Lizol shall not be classifiable
under Entry 44(5) and shall be classifiable under
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  26  of  32

Entry 27(4) of SRO 82/2006 chargeable to tax at
12.5%.
9.5 However,   so   far   as   the   product   Dettol   is
concerned,   it   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   that   Dettol   is  an   Antiseptic   Liquid   and
therefore is classifiable as a drug/medicine under
Entry 36(8)(h)(vi). The active ingredients of Dettol
are   Chloroxylenol   IP,   Terpineol   BP,   Alcohol
Absolute   IP   (denatured)   and   it   is   an   antiseptic
having   germicidal   properties   and   it   kills   germs,
bacteria   and   it   prevents   infection   therefore   it   is
applied on wounds, cuts, grazes, bites and stings.
It   is   also   used   in   hospitals   for   surgical   use   and
medical use.
9.6 Thus   the   Dettol   is   used   as   an   antiseptic   liquid
and is used in hospitals for surgical use, medical
use   and   midwifery ,   due   to   therapeutic   &
prophylactic properties .   Therefore, the same can
be said to be an item of medicament to be treated
as a drug and medicine.  Here also the dominant
use is a relevant consideration.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  27  of  32

9.7 In   the   case   of   Ponds   India   Ltd.   (supra)   this
Court   has   held   that   while   deciding   the   issue
whether   any   particular   item   would   be   covered
under   relevant   entry   or   classification,   different
tests   viz.   the   dictionary   meaning,   technical
meaning,   user’s   point   of   view,   popular   meaning
etc. are to  be applied.   In paragraphs 35 & 38 it
is observed and held as under:
“35…..while   interpreting   an   entry   in   a
taxing statute, the court’s role would be to
consider   the   effect   thereof   upon
considering   the   same   from   different
angles.     Different   tests   are   laid   down   for
interpretation   of   an   entry   in   a   taxing
statute,   namely,   dictionary   meaning,
technical   meaning,   user’s   point   of   view,
popular meaning, etc.”
XXX XXX XXX
“38. Whether a product would be a drug or
a   cosmetic   sometimes   poses   a   difficult
question   and,   thus,   answer   thereto   may
not   be   easy.     For   the   said   purpose,   the
court may not only be required to consider
the   contents   thereof,   but   also   the   history
of   the   entry,   the   purpose   for   which   the
product   is   used,   the   manner   in   which   it
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  28  of  32

has   been   dealt   with   under   the   relevant
statute   as   also   the   interpretation   thereof
by the implementing authorities.”
9.8 Thus,   as   per   the   settled   position   of   law   while
considering   a   particular   entry   the   principles   of
classification   which   are   fundamental   to   any
matter   relating   to   classification   under   the   taxing
statute are:
(a)   plain   meaning   to   be   given   to   the   taxing
provision; 
(b)   burden   to   prove   classification   in   a   particular
entry is always on the Revenue; 
(c)   any ambiguity has to be resolved in favour of
the   assessee   and   in   case   of   a   reasonable   doubt,
the   construction   most   beneficial   to   the   assessee
must be adopted; 
(d)   specific   entry   would   override   a   residuary
entry; and 
(e)   resort   to   residuary   entry   is   to   be   taken   as   a
last   measure,   only   when   by   liberal   construction
the   specific   entry   cannot   cover   the   goods   in
question.
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  29  of  32

9.9 At   this   stage   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
Guwahati   High   Court   and   the   Rajasthan   High
Court have held the Dettol to be a drug under the
respective   entries   of   Assam   VAT   Act   and
Rajasthan   VAT   Act   and   have   rejected   the
submission   of   the   Revenue   that   the   Dettol   falls
under   the   residuary   entry.     It   is   to   be   noted
against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court,
the   Revenue   had   preferred   the   SLPs   before   this
Court which are dismissed by this Court.
9.10 In   view   of   the   above   and   considering   the
dominant use of Dettol and the active ingredients
of   Dettol   referred   to   hereinabove   and   that   the
Dettol   is   used   as   an   antiseptic   and   is   used   in
hospitals   for   surgical   use,   medical   use   and
midwifery   due   to   therapeutic   &   prophylactic
properties the same would fall under Entry   36(8)
(h) (vi) as claimed by the appellant and would not
fall   under   the   residuary   entry   as   claimed   by   the
Revenue.   To that extent the impugned judgment
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  30  of  32

and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   deserves   to
be quashed and set aside.
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated
above,   present   appeal   succeeds   in   part.     The
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   in   so   far   as   the   products   Mosquito
Mats,   Coils   and   Vaporizers   and   Mortein   Insect
Killers;   Harpic   Toilet   Cleaner   and   Lizol   Floor
Cleaners   is   hereby   confirmed.     So   far   as   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   with   respect   to   Dettol   Antiseptic
Liquid is concerned, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is set aside and it
is   held   that   the   product   Dettol   would   fall   under
Entry 36(8) (h)(vi) of Schedule III of the KVAT Act
and shall be liable to be taxed at 4%.
Present   appeal   is   accordingly   partly   allowed   to
the   aforesaid   extent.     However,   in   the   facts   and
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  31  of  32

circumstances of the case there shall be no order
as to costs.
 
…………………………………J.
            (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                 (KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi, 
April 10, 2023
Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page  32  of  32