UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus LEUKOPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 25-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
LEUKOPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 
JANUARY 25, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Tariff Item 14-E of the First 
Schedul~Strips of surgical dressings-Containing pad medicated with· 
Nitrofurozone in small quanti~Whether falls within the meaning 'patent or 
A 
B 
proprietary medicine.' 
C 
The respondent-Company was manufacturing and selling strips of 
surgical dressings containing pads medicated with Nitrofurozone 
(0.125%). Whether this product was a 'patent or proprietary medicine' 
within the meaning of Tariff Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central 
Excise and Salt Act was gone into by the High Court at the instance of the D 
respondent. It was contended by the respondent that the product was used 
merely for protecting a cut or wound from getting infected from dust and 
other substances, thus enabling the body system to cure itself. It was 
contended that product did not have any curative prj)perties. 
The appellant contended that Nitrofurozone used in the strip, was 
meant for curing/treating the wounds and, as claimed by the Respondent 
itself in its advertisements, the product was a medical preparation. 
E 
The H!gh Court held that the said product was not a medical 
preparation and did not fall under Tariff Item 14-E of the First Schedule F 
to the Central Excises and Salt Act. Against the said judgment of the High 
Court, appellant-Revenue preferred this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not correct in its reasoning that to G 
call the product a medical preparation, Nitrofurozone must be atleast one 
per cent and since the product contained only 0.125 per cent it was not a 
medicine or medicinal preparation, in support of its reasoning, the High 
Court has relied upon a statement under the heading 'Non-adherent 
Wound-contact Dressings' Framycetin Sulphate Gauze (TULLE) H 
343 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dressing' from a Text Book ''The Pharmaceutical Codex" - Eleventh Edi-
tion - 1979, prepared and published by the Department of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. A perusal of the 
matter shows that the said requirement is in the case of a gauze an'd. not 
in the case of dressing or pad like the respondent's product. There is no 
.B other statencnt in the said CODEX, 'Ybich says that in the case of a 
dressing pad like the one concerned herein, Nitrofurozone or other drug 
should ~e in a particular quantity. The said said reason given by the High 
Court is, therefore, unsustainable. [346-H; 347-A-B] 
+ 
2. Nitrofurozone is not apr>lied to render the pad sterile; the pad is 
...,.....- -
C 
already rendered sterile and thereafter Nitrofurozone in the said small 
quantity is added. Therefore it cannot be said that the said small quantity 
of Nitrofurozone is applied to preserve the sterility. [347-C] 
3. The High Court has traced the course of this litigation and the 
inordinate delays in deciding the matter. The respondent has been paying 
D 
duty all the while under T.I. 68 till the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came 
into force. The difference of duty is very small. Having regard to all these 
facts, no interference is called for under Article 136 of the Constitution of 
India. [347-F] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5449 
(NM) of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1984 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 174/B/1981. 
Joseph Vellapalhtj, V.K. Verma, Dilip Tandon and C.V. Subba Rao 
for the Appellants. 
A. Hidayatullah, Ravinder Narain, Vikram Nankani, Ms. Amrita 
Mitra and D.N. Mishra for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. 1. The question in this appeal preferred by 
the Union of India against the decision of the Bombay High Court is 
whether the respondent's product. "Han<lyplast", is a 'patent or proprietary 
medicine' w~thin the meaning of Tariff Item 14-E of the First Schedule to 
H the Central Excise Act as it obtained at the relevant time. Tariff Item 14-E 
-~ 
+ 
-, 
•A 
U.0.1. v. LEUKOPLAST (P.) LID. [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.] 
345 
read as follows: 
A 
Item No. 14E - PATENT OR PROPRIETARY MEDICINES 
Tariff Item No. 
Description of Goods 
Rate of Duty 
14E 
PATENT OR PROPRIETARY 12.5 .Percent ad 
MEDICINES not-containing Valorem 
alcohol, opium, Indian hemp or 
other narcotic drugs other than 
those medicines which are 
exclusivel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.