1981 (7) TMI 77 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Homoeopathic injections under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the definition of Homoeopathic medicines under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the assessment of duty on Homoeopathic injections cleared by the original petitioner under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the injections should be recognized as exempt from duty under Item 14-E of the Act, which excludes certain Homoeopathic medicines. The respondents, however, assessed the injections to duty, leading to a series of unsuccessful appeals and revisions by the petitioner. The main issue was whether Homoeopathic injections administered by parenteral route could be considered as Homoeopathic medicines for the purpose of duty exemption under the Act.

2. The respondents, in their assessment, opined that Homoeopathic medicines excluded under Item 14-E of the Act do not include medicines administered by the parenteral route. They referred to Rule 2(dd) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which explicitly states that Homoeopathic medicines do not include those administered by injection. The absence of a specific definition of Homoeopathic medicines in the Act or Rules led the respondents to rely on the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to interpret the scope of Homoeopathic medicines. The judgment cited a previous case where it was held that the Act itself did not encompass Homoeopathic injections within the definition of Homoeopathic medicines, making Rule 2(dd) consistent with the Act.

3. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the respondents should have considered scientific works or authorities in the Homoeopathic field in their assessment. The judgment emphasized that the Act and Rules provided the basis for determining the classification of Homoeopathic medicines, and in the absence of a specific definition, reference to other relevant statutes was justified. The court found no legal basis to interfere with the orders of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition, noting the lack of evidence or legal arguments to challenge the assessment of duty on the Homoeopathic injections.