M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES

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. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.04.10 16:38:22 IST Reason: 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:

Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page 5 of 32 (d)  Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) of the Third Schedule reads as under:

Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page 6 of 32

Entry 66 of Notification No. SRO No. 82/2006, st G.O.(P) No. 4/2006/TD Dated 21  January 2006. LIST OF GOODS

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

Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010                   Page 9 of 32 decisions   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   and

Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP, 2005 SCC Online All 1214 (Para 23 to 36); Sl. No. 22 @ page 282­

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

Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1995 Supp. (2)

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.

Health   Products   (P)   Ltd.   vs.   CCE,   Vadodara

products are used for disinfecting the skin prior to surgery.   It is submitted that as per Concise

“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

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.

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

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

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

Assistant   Commercial   Taxes   Officer   &   Ors.,

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.

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     this Ponds   India   Ltd.   (supra) 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.”

considering a particular entry the principles of classification   which   are   fundamental   to   any matter relating to classification under the taxing

the assessee and in case of a reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the assessee

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

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