1964 (7) TMI 6 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the revised demand for duty on patent and proprietary medicines.
2. Exemption of duty for mixtures of drugs recognized by pharmacopoeias.
3. Allegation of discriminatory taxing statute violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the revised duty demand on patent medicines before the Assistant Collector Central Excise. The demand was upheld, prompting the appellant to challenge its validity and legality. The appellant's arguments were narrowed down to two points during the appeal. Firstly, it was argued that mixtures of drugs recognized by specific pharmacopoeias should be exempt from duty. However, this argument was raised for the first time during the hearing and lacked supporting evidence regarding the nature of the medicines in question. The definition of patent or proprietary medicines under the Drugs Act, 1940 was discussed, emphasizing that compounds of recognized drugs may still fall under the duty charge unless separately recognized in the pharmacopoeias.

2. The second point raised was the alleged discriminatory nature of the taxing statute under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Act, 1961. The argument suggested that levying duty on unrecognized mixtures while exempting recognized drugs was unconstitutional under Article 14. The court dismissed this argument, noting that it was not raised earlier in the proceedings and lacked evidence to prove the alleged discrimination. The court highlighted the need for the appellant to demonstrate that the taxed mixtures and exempt drugs were comparable, which was not established. The court found the classification based on recognition by pharmacopoeias to be reasonable and serving the legislative objectives of the relevant acts.

3. The judgment clarified that no other contentions were presented during the appeal, and findings from previous arguments were not contested. Despite various objections raised before the lower court, the judgment affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, ordering costs to be borne by the appellant. Additionally, an oral application for leave under Article 132 of the Constitution was refused, concluding the legal proceedings in the case.