| Headnote |
590 BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN (P) LTD. JHANSI EXCISE COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS. October 14. 1970 (J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Medicinaland .Toilet Preparations(Excise Duties) Act (16 of 1955) s. 4 and Jte;n l of Schedule-Medical preparations c011t11i11ing tincrures which contain {l/coliol-1.f d11tiahle. A B The appellant is amanufacturerof certainmedicineswith the aid of C substanceslike tincture,spirit, etc., whichcontain alcoh~I. On the ques· tion whetherhe wasliableto paydutyunderthe Medicinaland Toilet Preparation(Excise Duties)Act, 1955, HELD : (I) The preparations ·arc proprietary medicinal. preparations andare not ·capable of beingconsumed as ordinary alcoholbeverages. Accordingto ItemI of the Scheduleto theAct,in order io attractduty,D all that .isrequired is thatthemedicinalpreparation · should contain alcohol.. Alcoholmay be a part of the preparationeither. because it is directly added to the solutionor it cameto beincluJedin. themedicinal preparationbecause one of itscomponentscontains alcoho1. [592 E·Gl , (2) It may be that a tincture is dutiableunder the itenl, ano, when themedicinalpreparationin whichit was/. used is also made dutiable it will ·involve multi-pointtaxation. But s. 4 of the Actshowsthat the multi-pointE tail on meaicinalpreparationscontaining alcohol wa·, within the contem plation of the Legislature. That sectionprovidesfor rebate of duty on alcoholsuppliedto themanufacturerof dutiable g,1ods, and, every rebate pressupposcsimposition of tax or duty, /593 B-Fl (3) The rebate tinder s. 4 is confinedonly to those. goods which · directlycome withinthe scopeof s. 4 and 11ot toothers .. Frqmsuch a provisionit cannotbe saidthat as regardthe othermedicinal preparations, F therecan be no levywhen.the language of the provisionimposing the levy is plainand unambiguous,[593 F-G] M/.11. Phann Products l.,td. Tha11javur v. District Revenue Officer, A.T.R. 1969 Mad. 448, ·approved. Cape BrandySyndicate v. Conunissioners of Inland Rivenill', [1921] KB. 64, referredto. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgmentand order dated April28, 1970 of the AllahabadHigh Court in SpecialAppeal To. 368 of 1970. S. · V. Gupte and SQbhagma/Jain, for the appellant. ·O. P. Rana and R. Bana, for the respondents. (. H BAIDYANATH AYURVED(P) LTD. v. EXCISE COMMR. (Hegde, J.)5'91 A The Judgment ofthe Courtwas delivered by B Hegde J.-In this appealby specialleave the trueambit af item 1 inthe Schedule totheMedicinaland Toilet Preparations (ExciseDuties)Act, 1955(to be hereinafterreferred to as theAct) readwith s. 3(1) of thatAct comesup forconsideration. Theappellant is a manufacturerof certainmedicineswith the aidof substanceslike tincture,spirit etc. The tinctureand spirit intheirturn containalcohol.The Superintendentof Excise· call ed uponthe appellantto paydutyunderthe Acton themedicinal preparationon thegroundthat theycontainalcohol.The appel• C !ant resistedthe demandon thegroundthat the medicinesin ques tion werenot preparedby addingpure alcohol;the fact!hat the tincturewhich is a componentof thatpreparationcontains alcohol doesnot makeit a preparationcontaining alcohol. That conten tion was rejected by theSuperintendent of Excise as well as by the HighCourtin theWritpetitionbroughtby theappellant. D E F G H It is admittedthat alcoholthough it wasnot directlyadded is acomponent of themedicinalpreparations in question. The alco. ho!has notundergoneany chemical ch;:mge intosomeother subs tance. It is presentin a liquidform in thosepreparations. The questionfor decision ts whetherthe preparation in questiondo not attract duty because alcoholwas not directlyadded to the solution. Thecontentionof theappellant is thatunlessalcohol is added info the preparationin itsfree .condition, a medicinalpreparation does not becomedutiable. For decidingthis question we maynow readthe relevantprovisionsof theAct. Section3(1) of theActsays: "There shallbe leviedduties of excis~, at therates specifiedin theSchedule,on all dutiable goodsmanu facturedin India." "Dutiablegoods" is defined ins. 2(c) as meaningthe medicinal andtoiletpreparationsspecified in the Schedule· asbeingsubject totheduties of exciseleviedunder this Act. "MedicinalPrepara tion" is definedin s. 2(g) in· these words: " "medicinalpreparation"includes all drugswhich area remedy or prescriptionprepared for internal or ex ternal use of humanbeings, or animalsand all substan ces intendedto beusedfor or in the treatm~nt, mitigation or prevention of diseasein humanbeings or animals." 592 SUPREME _COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. Item 1 oftheSchedule,the onlyitemwithwhich we are con cernedin this case reads as follows : ItemNo. Description of Dutiable goods Rate of Duty !. Medicinal preparation. Medicinal preparations, b:ing patent or proprietary medicines, containing alcohol and which are not Capable of· being · consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages. Ten Percent ab valouem The only otherprovisionwhich we need consider is .s. 4 of the Act. Thatsectionreads thus : Wil.ere _ alcohol,opium, Indian hemp or other narc <;> ticdrugor narc9!ic had beensuppliedto a manufac turerof anydutiablegoods for use as an ingredientof suchgoods by, or iinderthe authorityof, thecollecting Governmentand a duty'of excise on thegoodsso sup plied had alreadybeenrecoveredby suchGovernment underany law for thetimebeingin force,the collecting Governmentshall, on an applicationbeing made to it in thisbehalf, grant in- respect cif the dutyof excise leviable under this Act,a rebateto suchmanufacturerof the ex cess, if any, of thedutyso recoveredover the duty levi; ableunderthis Act." It was conceded tl}at the preparationswith which we are con cernedin thiscaseare medicinalpreparations.They are proprie tary medicinesand thattheyare notcapableof beingconsumed as ordinaryalcohol beverages.The only question that has to be decided is whetherthose preparationscontain alcohol.; It is admittedthat tinctureis a component of thatpreparationand al cohol is a component of tincture.Therefore we fail to see how it can be urgedthat thosepreparationsdo notcontainalcohol. In order to attractduty all that is (equired is thata medicinal prepara tionshouldcontainalcohol.Alcohol may be a pattof the pre parationeither becauseit is directly added to thesolutionor it came to beincluded in thatmedicinalpreparationbecause of one of thecomponentsof thatpreparationcontained alcohol. Accord ing to theplainlanguageof theprovisionall thatis requiredis thatthe preparationshould cont~,in alcohol. In interpretinga tax ing provision,the courtsshouldnot ordinarilyconcern themselves withthe policybehindthe provisionor evenwith its impact.As observedby Rowlatt J. in Cape BrandySyndicate v. Commis sioners of ln/at(d Revenue( 1 ) ina taxingAct one ha~ to lookat (I) [1921] 1 K. B. 64. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G BAIDYANATH AYURVED(P)LTD. v. EXCISE COMMR. (Hegde, J.)593 what is clearly said. There is no room for anyintendment.There is no equityabout a tax.Thereis no presumptionas to a tax. Nothi11g is to be readin, nothingis to be implied. One can only lookfairly at _the languageused. It was urgedon behalfof the appellantthat if we holdthat evenindirectintroductionof alcohol intoa medicinalpreparationbrings that preparationwithin the scope. of s. 3(1) C!! the Act,it wouldmean . multipointtaxation. Coming to themedicinalpreparationswith whichwe areconcerned in thiscase, it wasurgedthat if theviewtakenby the High Court is correctthen, first the tinctureused becamedutiableand ·there after th..: medicinalpreparationsin whichtincturewas usedbecame dutiable. It wassaidthat that couldnot be the intentionof the parliament.We are unable to appreciate this contention. Multi· point- taxationis not unknown to us. Uur attentionwas invitedto s. 4 of the Act in supportof the contentionthat the legislaturedid not .intend to levy multi-point tax.Section4 pr()vides for rebateof. dutyon alcoholsupplied to the manufacturerof dutiablegoods for use as an ingredientof such goodsby or underthe authorityof thecollectinggovernmentand adutyof exciseon goodsso suppliedhad alreadybeen recovered bysuchgovernmentunder any law for thetimebeingin force. In our opinionthis provisioninstead. of supportingthe appellantgoes to show that multi-point tax on medicinalpreparationscontaining alcoholwas withinthe contemplationof _the leigslature; otherwise therewas no purposein incorppr~ting s. 4 intothe Act. If section 3 did not jmpose anylevyon medicinalpreparationsof which pure alcoholis not a component,there was no neea for s. 4.There can be no questiqn ofanyrebateif therewas no levy. at all. Every rebatepresupposesan impositionof tax or duty. But. the rebate under s. 4isconfinedonly to those goodswhichdirectlycome withinthescope .of s. 4 andnot to others. That was the willof Parliament. If Parliamentdesired to give rebate ()Illy in certain casesand not to, others, it cannot be saidthatas re•ards the othermedicinalpreparationsthere can be no levy. In" our judg ment t~e language. of_th~ provision impos~g. t'he levyis plainund u~~b1guous. It imposesduty on all med1cmalpreparations con tamµ1g alcohol. At thehearing our attentionwas invited to the decisionof the Madras High Courtin M/s. Pharm Products Ltd. Than;avur & ors. v. Dist. Rev. Officer(1). The conclnsionreached by that HighCourtaccordswith our conclusion. In the result this appealfails and the same is dismissedwith costs. H V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. (I) A.I.R. 1969 Mad. 448. |
