LexBAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN (P) LTD. JHANSI versus EXCISE COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
590
BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN (P) LTD.
JHANSI
EXCISE COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS.
October 14. 1970
(J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Medicinal and .Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act (16 of 1955)
s. 4 and Jte;n l of Schedule-Medical preparations c011t11i11ing tincrures
which contain {l/coliol-1.f d11tiahle.
A
B
The appellant is a manufacturer of certain medicines with the aid of
C
substances like tincture, spirit, etc., which contain alcoh~I. On the ques·
tion whether he was liable to pay duty under the Medicinal and Toilet
Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955,
HELD : (I) The preparations ·arc proprietary medicinal. preparations
and are not ·capable of being consumed as ordinary
alcohol beverages.
According to Item I of the Schedule to the Act, in order io attract duty,
D
all that .is required is that the
medicinal
preparation · should
contain
alcohol. . Alcohol may be a part of the preparation either. because it is
directly added to the solution or it came to be incluJed in. the medicinal
preparation because one of its components contains alcoho1. [592 E·Gl
,
(2) It may be that a tincture is dutiable under the itenl, ano, when
the medicinal preparation in which it was/. used is also made dutiable it will
·involve multi-point taxation. But s. 4 of the Act shows that the multi-point
E
tail on meaicinal preparations containing alcohol wa·, within the contem-
plation of the Legislature.
That section provides for rebate of duty on
alcohol supplied to the manufacturer of dutiable g,1ods, and, every rebate
pressupposcs imposition of tax or duty, /593 B-Fl
(3) The rebate tinder s. 4 is confined only
to those . goods
which
· directly come within the scope of s. 4 and 11ot to others .. Frqm such a
provision it cannot be said that as regard the other medicinal preparations,
F
there can be no levy when .the language of the provision imposing the levy
is plain and unambiguous, [593 F-G]
M/.11. Phann Products l.,td.
Tha11javur v. District Revenue
Officer,
A.T.R. 1969 Mad. 448, ·approved.
Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Conunissioners of Inland Rivenill', [1921]
KB. 64, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1924 of
1970.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 28, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
\To. 368 of 1970.
S. · V. Gupte and SQbhagma/ Jain, for the appellant.
·O. P. Rana and R. Bana, for the respondents.
(.
H
BAIDYANATH AYURVED(P) LTD. v. EXCISE COMMR. (Hegde, J.)5'91
A
The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by
B
Hegde J.-In this appeal by special leave the true ambit af
item 1 in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations
(Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act)
read with s. 3(1) of that Act comes up for consideration.
The appellant is a manufacturer of certain medicines with the
aid of substances like tincture, spirit etc. The tincture and spirit
in their turn contain alcohol. The Superintendent of Excise· call-
ed upon the appellant to pay duty under the Act on the medicinal
preparation on the ground that they contain alcohol. The appel•
C
!ant resisted the demand on the ground that the medicines in ques-
tion were not prepared by adding pure alcohol; the fact !hat the
tincture which is a component of that preparation contains alcohol
does not make it a preparation containing alcohol. That conten-
tion was rejected by the Superintendent of Excise as well as by the
High Court in the Writ petition brought by the appellant.
D
E
F
G
H
It is admitted that alcohol though it was not directly added is
a component of the medicinal preparations in question.
The alco.
ho! has not undergone any chemical ch;:mge into some other subs-
tance. It is present in a liquid form in those preparations.
The
question for decision ts whether the preparation in question do not
attract duty because alcohol was not directly added to the solution.
The contention of the appellant is that unless alcohol is added info
the preparation in its free .condition, a medicinal preparation does
not become dutiable.
For deciding this question we may now
read the relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 3(1) of the Act says:
"There shall be levied duties of excis~, at the rates
specified in the Schedule, on all dutiable goods manu-
factured in India."
"Dutiable goods" is defined ins. 2(c) as meaning the medicinal
and toilet preparations specified in the ScExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.