1984 (8) TMI 83 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prematurity of the Writ Petition due to alternative remedy.
2. Classification of Handyplast as a drug or medicinal preparation under Item 14E.
3. Time-barred nature of the impugned order and show cause notices u/s 35A(3)(b).

Summary:

1. Prematurity of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition is premature as the petitioners had an alternative remedy by filing a revision against the impugned order dated 25th October 1980. However, the court held that there is no bar for the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction even if an alternative remedy exists. Given the circumstances, including the delay in disposing of the revision application and the issuance of repeated show-cause notices, the court found the statutory remedy to be too dilatory and thus entertained the writ petition.

2. Classification of Handyplast:
The core issue was whether Handyplast is a drug or medicinal preparation falling under Item 14E of the First Schedule of the Tariff. The court examined the definition of 'patent or proprietary medicines' and emphasized that the main ingredient is that the product must be a drug or medicinal preparation. The court found that Handyplast, containing only 0.125% of Nitrofurozone, does not have curative or healing properties and is used merely as a protective covering for small wounds. The court relied on technical literature, including the Pharmaceutical Codex, and affidavits from medical professionals, concluding that Handyplast is a surgical dressing and not a medicinal preparation. Therefore, Handyplast does not fall under Item 14E.

3. Time-barred Nature of the Impugned Order:
The petitioners contended that the impugned order and show cause notices were time-barred u/s 35A(3)(b) of the Act. However, since the court decided the case on merits, it did not find it necessary to address this technical aspect.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The court rejected the respondents' oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating there were no substantial questions of law of general importance involved.