ADHYAKSHA MATHUR BABU'S SAKTI OUSHADHALAYA DACCA (P) LTD. AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 07-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
3 s:c:R. 
SUPREME -COURT REPORTS 
ADHYAKSHA MATHUR BABU'S SAKTI 
OUSHADHALAYA DACCA (P) ~TD. 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
957 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., S. J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, 
. K. N. W ANCHOO~ J. C. SHAH and 
N. RAJAGQPAL.A AYYANGAR, JJ',) 
Excise Duty-Mritasanjibani, 
Mritasanjibani 
Sudha, · 
Mritasanjibani Sura, if medicinal preparations-If liable under 
the; . State Acts-Medicinal . and Toilet Preparations (Excise 
Duties) Act, 1955 (16of1955), ss.2(g), 18(2), 21-0onstitution 
of India, Art. 277, Seventh Schedule, List I, Item 84. 
The·petitioners carried: on business as manufacturers .of 
medicinal preparations according to Ayurvedic system and 
as such manufactured Mritasanjibani, Mritasanjibani Sudha 
and Mritasanjibani Sura by the process of distillation in 
accordance with the Ayurvedic formula stated in such ancient 
' Ayurvedic treatises as .Ayurvedic Sangraha, Bhaisajya Ratna-
bali and Arka Prakas,h, accepted as embodying the Ayurvcdic 
pharmacopoeia all over India. When the Parliament passed 
the ·Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 
1955, these three AyurvediC 
preparations were taxed at 
the rate of Rs. 17/8/- as 
prescribed by 
item I of the 
Schedule to the Rules framed under s. 18(2) of the Act as 
being medicinal preparations as defined by s. 2(g) of the Act. 
Later on, the Rules were amended and the three preparations 
omitted from the schedule to the rules and the various 
State Governments began demanding duties of excise on these 
preparations at much higher rates under the various· State 
Excise Acts. The case of the petitioners was that the levy of 
FJLcise auties on. these preparations fell within item 84 of 
List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and it 
was not open' to the State Governments to levy Excise duties 
under the State Acts, that . since these preparations were 
medicinal preparations as defined by s.2(g) of the Act, their 
omission from the Schedule was of no effect and could not 
empower the State Governments to levy Excise duties and 
that the Central Government had no power to exclude the 
said preparations on the advice of the Standing Committee 
constituted under r. 68 of the 
Rules. 
The petitioners 
relied on a large number of affidavits from qualified Ayurvedic 
1982. 
September '7, 
'-· 
I 
--
' > . 
' . 
958 : SUPREME COUltT REPORTS 
-[1963] 
practitioners to the effect th=t these preparati~ns were Ayurve-
dic medicines. This was denied by the respondents who relied 
.ddlr.yal:,ha Mafhur 
on the rei}ort of the Sta.tiding Committee that these prepa· 
Bahu's Sak.ti 
· 
d 
d" • I 
1962 
Duahadhalaya 
. · ration were mere beverages an 
not _me 1crna preparations. 
<>acca(P) Ltd. 
No affidavit of. any Ayurvedlc expert was, however, filed-
• v. 
by them. 
Union of India~ -
_ _ Hdd, that there could be no doubt that these prepa-
rations according to standard Ayurvedic texts were clearly 
-- "medicinal preparations" within the meaning of s.2(g) of 
the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 
1955, though they could also be used as ordinary 
akoholic 
_ beverages. They were, therefore, liable to duty under item I 
of the Schedule to that Act and no Excise Duty could be levied 
on them under the Excise Acts of the States. 
-
-
The decision of the Standing Committee . could not be 
conclusive on the question whether these preparations were 
medicinal_ preparations and th Cir omission from the list 
attached to the Rules on its report could be of no effect. 
• 
Held, further, that lt could not be correct to say that 
~ 
even if, these preparations were ''medicinal preparations" 
they would be liable to Excise duty both under the Act and 
the various Excise Acts ()f the States. 
-
· 
With the passivg of-\hesaic! Act; the •avirg made by 
Art.177 ofiht Cer.stitution in favtur of tlie States came to 
- an <nd •nd the re:ult was ttat the State Governments were 
no Longrr •ntitl<d to levy any duty on medicinal and toilet 
preparaticns and, furthrr, s.21 of the Act tffected a repeal 
of such provisions of the' State Excise Acts as related to 
· medicinal and toilet_ preparations. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: .Petitions Nos. 344 
and 350 to 354 of ID61. \. . 
Petitions under Art. 32 of I he Constitution o! 
India for enfrrconent of fundamental rights. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri,· A.N. Sinha, N. H. 
Hingorani and B. P. Jha, for the 
0
petition~r1. 
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents 
·Nos. I, 2 and 7 to 8 (in all the petitions). 
-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.