9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Schedule O of the 1940 Act and falls in the category of 'drugs' defined in Section 3(b) of the said Act. The information is provided by the official of the office dealing with the said product and issuing licence under the 1940 Act for manufacture of BDF - There is no contradiction by the State to the contention that BDF is used as a disinfectant to sterilize houses, hospitals, veterinary hospitals etc. and that the product is also applied to the wounds of animals to kill maggots, worms etc. in the wounds. The case of the appellant is that BDF be treated to be covered under the residuary entry. The contention lacks merit. Resort to residuary entry can only be made if the product is not covered under a specific Entry - BDF is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The pin pointed issue involved in the present appeal is: Whether the Black Disinfectant Fluid (for short, 'BDF') is covered under Entry 25 of Schedule C of the 2003 Act? Entry 25 of Schedule C is reproduced below: 25. Bulk drugs, drugs, medicines, vaccines, medicated ointments produced under drug licence, light liquid paraffin of IP grade, syringes, dressings, glucose-D, oral re-hydration salt, medical equipments/devices and implants, surgical tables and surgical lights used for surgery of patients in the operation theatre. The answer to the question is against the revenue and in favour of the assessee i.e. BDF is covered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that BDF is covered under the term 'drugs' mentioned in Entry 25 of Schedule C of the 2003 Act. The contention is that the intention of the Legislature was to cover the drugs and allied products used for human beings/animal consumption and BDF is not specifically mentioned in the Entry. To fortify the contention, it is submitted that merely BDF is regulated under the 1940 Act, that would not change the meaning of drug as mentioned in Entry 25 of Schedule C. The contentions raised cut no ice. The proposition is well settled by catena of judgments of Supreme Court that for interpretation to the Entries in fiscal statute, common parlance test is to be applied. In other words, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with it and it is that the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention, when the statute was enacted. ( A. Nagaraju Bros. v. State of A.P., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 122; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 449; CCE v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 585). 18. The use of common parlance test and its advantage over the etymological test has been very aptly explained by this Court in context of term furniture in Craft Interiors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 12 SCC 250 . This Court has observed as under: 18. We may add that sometimes chairs, beds, tables, desks, etc. are affixed to the ground, but nevertheless they will still be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2012 (13) SCC 639 , it was held as under: 18. Time and again, the principle of common parlance as the standard for interpreting terms in the taxing statutes, albeit subject to certain exceptions, where the statutory context runs to the contrary, has been reiterated. The application of common parlance test is an extension of the general principle of interpretation of statutes for deciphering the mind of the law maker; it is an attempt to discover the intention of the legislature from the language used by it, keeping always in mind, that the language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of actual human thoughts. The term 'drug' is not defined under the 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. In the absence of definition under the 2003 Act, reliance was rightly placed by the Tribunal on definition under Section 3(b) of the 1940 Act, as it shows as to how the people dealing with the said goods understand the same. The argument that the Entry 25 of Schedule C will apply only to the products that are for consumption of human beings or animals does not emanate from the Entry. The requisites are that it should be 'drug' and produced under the licence. BDF is covered under definition of 'drug' and the assessee is a licensee under the 1940 Act. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is in consonance with common parlance test. The assessee produced letter dated 7.1.2016 received from the Assistant State D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
