ENOCH PHARMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications raise a common question about the validity of R.38(1) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. This rule reads as follows:

(2.) The argument advanced by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, stated briefly, is that a glance at the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and the relevant sections of the statute would make it clear that the scope and ambit as well as the purpose of the statute is only the imposition of duty on "dutiable goods" defined as such in the statute and regarding which a charge has been imposed by S.3 of the Act.

(3.) To understand the above contention, one fact has to be borne in mind. The duty and the penalty imposed by virtue of R.38(1) is not a duty imposed on any medicinal or toilet preparations specified in the schedule to the Act. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, that the duty is imposed on spirit supplied to the manufacturer who has been licensed to manufacture medicinal and toilet preparations specified in the schedule to the Act and which according to the computation made in accordance with R.38 has been unaccounted for.