UNION OF INDIA Vs. LEUKOPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal preferred by the Union of India against the decision of the Bombay High Court is whether the respondent's product. "Handyplast", is a 'patent or proprietary medicine' within the meaning of Tariff Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act as it obtained at the relevant time. Tariff Item 14-E read as follows:

(2.) THE respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of strips of surgical dressings containing a pad medicated with nitrofurozone (0. 125 Per Cent ) sold under the trade-name 'Handyplast'. A sample of the said product is placed before the court as Exhibit-B. THE following is the general description of such products, as set out by the High Court (1984 (86) Bom LR 450):

(3.) COMING to the other ground given by the High Court we find ourselves equally unable to agree. The Nitrofurozone is not applied to render the pad sterile; the pad is already rendered sterile and thereafter Nitrofurozone in the said small quantity is added. Before us Shri Hidayatullah, learned Counsel for the respondent, sought to contend that the said small quantity of Nitrofurozone is applied to preserve the sterility; but this is not the ground assigned by the High Court, nor is any text book cited by learned Counsel to support his contention conclusively.