SIRI PHARMA Vs. CENTRAL EXCISE VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether 'Essence of Chicken' is liable to Excise duty under Entry 1-B of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The question is of considerable importance and I deem it desirable that the case is heard by a Bench of two Judges. The papers shall, therefore be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for posting the case before a Bench. (In pursuance of the above order the case came before the Bench) ORDER

(2.) This matter is placed btfore us on a reference made by our learned brother, Madhusudan Rao J., He has referred the matter to a Division Bench because he felt that the question whether the essence of chicken is liable to excise duty under Entry 1-B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was of considerable importance and he deemed it desirable that the case should be decided by a Bench of two Judges. The petitioners herein are manufacturers of essence of chicken. The first petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of pharmaceutical works of manufacture and production of patented and proprietory medicines. The first petitioner firm is the lessee of the seocond petitioner, and the business premises are owned by the second petitioner company. The essence of chicken is produced or manufactured by the first petitioner besides other medicinal goods. The first petitioner is paying excise duties to the authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. Declaration of particulars of goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the first petitioner with full particular of the goods with Drug Schedule was subnmted by the first petitioner to the Central Excise authorities at Vijayawada and the same was verified and found correct by the Inspector on November 30, 1971. Item 5 of the said declaration contained goods of 30 kinds of medical preparation of which item one was essence of chicken. At one stage, the second respondent, i-e., the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vijayawada passed an order that all the 30 items were non-txcisable. However, on September 15, 1972, the first respondent i. c. the Superintendent of Central Excise, Vijayawada intimated to the first petitioner that the essence of chicken was an extract of meat juice and that "Meat extracts and Meat Juices" would come under the purview of tariff item No. 1-B of the first schedule attached to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as an item of prepared and preserved ted foods with effect from 1-3-1969 and that the essence of chicken therefore attract Central Excise Duty with effect from March 1, 1969. Therefore, representations were made and ultimately, the petioners have filed this writ petition for a declaration that the essence of chicken is not a product of meat and for declaring that the essence of chicken is not liable to levy of excise duty under item 1-B of the first schedule to the Act. The Petitioners have prayed that orders of Respondent 3, the Union of India, conforming the levying of excise duty on the product Essence of chicken' under item 1-B should be quashed. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is worthwhile to state how the essence of chicken is manufactured. Annexure 8 in the material papers: which is an order passed by the Government of India on the Revision petition under Sec, 36 of the Act sets out the process as follows;

(3.) In Encyiopaedia Britannica, it is pointed out that meat is the flesh or edible offal of domestic animals used for food. It includes beef, pork lamb, mutton and veal. In a broad sense, the term meat may include poultry and game. It is true as observed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Ramakrishna vs. Janpad Sabha] at page 107, is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the intention of the legislature should be gathered from the words of the enacment. If those words are incapable of the construction as was being contended for, that construction cannot be modified and the legislative intent with which that proviso was enacted supplemented by a reference to what the legislature did later No doubt, there is authority for the proposition that when the meaning of the words used in an enactment is ambiguous or obscure subsequent statutes might sometimes be used as what has been terms "a parliamentary exposition" of the obscure phraseology. There is no indication in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as to whether the word "meat" is to be understood in the wider sense by including in it flesh of poultry and fowls or whether it is to be understood in the narrower sense of flesh of animals only. Sri Subrahmanya Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government has drawnoar attention to the fact that in the Customs Tariff Act. 1975, Section 1 (Chapter 1) says that Chapter I covers all live animals except fish, crustanceans and molluses, mictobial cultures and other products mentioned therein. In Chapter II of Section 1, "meat and edible meat offal etc." are defined to mean "meat including poultry, liver unfit or unsuitable for human consumption etc." The tables set out in that chapter (Chapter II of Section (1) of the Act indicates that meat would include flesh of poultry as well. If Entry No. 3 in the schedule to the notification is to ba applied as taking away the exemption, then, it is obvious that the essence of chicken must amount to meat extract or meat juice.