Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Vicco Laboratories on 20 February, 1968
3. The question whether the products were ayurvedic drugs could not and did not arise for determination. The only question that was raised and considered in that case is whether tooth-powder was or was not an article of toilet preparation. It was presumed that Vicco Vajradanthi was a tooth-powder.
Sarin Chemical Laboratory vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P on 7 August, 1970
The act of brushing one's teeth with tooth-paste or tooth-powder is not certainly in the same nature as taking or using medicine. Soaps, scents and perfumes were separately listed because they were subject to different rates and he therefore, took the view that the intention of the framers of the notifications was to include all articles in the expressions "cosmetics and toilet requisites", as are popularly regarded as articles falling within that category but such of those articles as were intended to be taxed at different rates were separated and listed separately. He also took note of the fact that even the manufacturers of dentifrices like tooth-paste and tooth-powder regarded them as items of cosmetic and toiletry and he referred to Ciba which is a well-known company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. He noticed the decision in Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax wherein it was decided that in common parlance, a tooth-powder is considered as a toilet article. That meaning accords with the dictionary meaning as well. He did not deal with the material produced by the appellant. He disposed of the same by stating that the voluminous, documentary evidences produced by the respondent before the first appellate authority pertains to the scientific definitions and the analysis tried to be carried out thereon. However, going into the scientific details would become necessary if the entry in the Schedule can be interpreted in two different ways or if there is any ambiguity. Otherwise, it is enough to know how the trader, the buyer, the seller and the consumer understand the issue.
Section 18 in The Drugs (Control) Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Prakash Trading Co. Ahmedabad on 22 August, 1972
This view having been approved by the Supreme Court in Sarin Chemical's case [1970] 26 STC 339 and the view expressed in Sarin Chemical's case having reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Prakash Trading Company , we would have had no difficulty in treating Vicco Vajradanthi in the form of powder as only a toiletry item. But a perusal of the decisions in these cases would make it clear they have all rested on the dictionary meaning and no more. The courts were not concerned in these cases with the nature of the article, the ingredients thereof, the use to which they are put with specific reference to extra information as to how the goods were treated in the market as such particularly, the circumstances that the manufacturers of the goods in question having applied for a licence under the Drugs Act as an ayurvedic drug and the same having been obtained and the goods marketed as such, the goods having been subjected to an examination by the Technical Committee of the ISI (Specification of Marks) Act, 1952 and the goods having been held not to be a cosmetic or toiletry item but only as a drug, the matter needs closer examination. As the matter stood prior to 1971 and when the Drugs Act stood amended and became enforceable in Maharashtra in relation to ayurvedic drugs also, the position took a different complexion altogether. Therefore, all those decisions that have been rendered prior to January 15, 1971 were in the context of dictionary meanings to such expressions as "toiletry items". There is no material before any one of the authorities in those cases as to the nature of the goods much less any licence obtained, under the Drugs Act or expert opinion furnished by the Technical Committee of the ISI, to classify it as a cosmetic or a toiletry item. In the absence of such material forth coming, the court had no other view possible to take in those circumstances. After the goods in question had been treated as ayurvedic drugs for the purpose of the Drugs Act, the excise authorities functioning under the Central Excises and Salt Act for purposes of classification of the goods and levy of tax, examined the matter and took the view that they were drugs and not cosmetics or toiletry items though they had earlier taken the view to the contrary.
Collector Of Customs And Central ... vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. And Anr. on 14 March, 1975
3. Halls ice mint tablets are not ayurvedic medicines merely because of the ingredient pudhina and eucalyptus oil. Collector of Central Excise v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (1989) 42 ELT 33.
Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Sarin Chemical Laboratory on 29 January, 1969
(Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Sarin Chemical Laboratory), the court was concerned with tooth-powder which was marketed as Sarin Dant Manjan used for cleaning the teeth, is an article of cosmetic or toilet requisite. The act of brushing one's teeth with tooth-paste or tooth-powder is not the same thing as taking or using medicine.
V.P. Somasundara Mudaliar vs The State Of Madras on 12 July, 1963
Learned Government Pleader referred to the decision in V. P. Somasundara Mudaliar v. State of Madras [1963] 14 STC 943 (Mad.) wherein, under the Madras Sales Tax Act, the scope of item 51 of the First Schedule to the Act as in force in 1959 was considered. It was held therein that the tooth-powder does not come within the scope of item 51 thereof and it is used for cleaning the teeth and not for enhancing the beauty of a person and it cannot be included in the category of goods such as "powders, cosmetics or toilet requisites" mentioned in the Act.
Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. ... vs A.V. Borkar, Superintendent, Central ... on 17 June, 1982
6. It was further contended that, taking into consideration the effect of the Drugs Act and ISI (Specification of Marks) Act, 1952, by virtue of rule 150A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 reads with section 27A of the Drugs Act, the manufacturers are manufacturing cosmetics firstly without a licence and secondly not in conformity with the ISI specifications. The manufacturer had approached the Indian Standard Institute for having a ISI mark to its products. The technical committee for cosmetics examined the matter and opined that the three products in question are not cosmetics being ayurvedic drugs or medicines. Under the Drugs Act, the products in question have been recognised as ayurvedic products alone and not cosmetics and experts under the ISI Act have endorsed this opinion. Therefore, the sales tax authorities cannot propose to take a stand unsupported by any legal or factual foundation and in the absence of any material to dispel this material produced by the appellant to reach the conclusion that these products are not ayurvedic drugs or medicines but toiletry items. It was submitted that it is a settled proposition that views and opinions of the Sectional Committees of the ISI need to be accepted in view of the expertise possessed by them, unless there is strong evidence or any other reason to take contrary view and such material is not available in the present case. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. , Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Limited v. Union of India (1980) ELT 679, Parry Confectionery Ltd., Madras v. Government of India (1980) ELT 468, Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. A. V. Borkar, Superintendent, Central Excise (1983) ELT 338 and Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India .
Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985
6. It was further contended that, taking into consideration the effect of the Drugs Act and ISI (Specification of Marks) Act, 1952, by virtue of rule 150A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 reads with section 27A of the Drugs Act, the manufacturers are manufacturing cosmetics firstly without a licence and secondly not in conformity with the ISI specifications. The manufacturer had approached the Indian Standard Institute for having a ISI mark to its products. The technical committee for cosmetics examined the matter and opined that the three products in question are not cosmetics being ayurvedic drugs or medicines. Under the Drugs Act, the products in question have been recognised as ayurvedic products alone and not cosmetics and experts under the ISI Act have endorsed this opinion. Therefore, the sales tax authorities cannot propose to take a stand unsupported by any legal or factual foundation and in the absence of any material to dispel this material produced by the appellant to reach the conclusion that these products are not ayurvedic drugs or medicines but toiletry items. It was submitted that it is a settled proposition that views and opinions of the Sectional Committees of the ISI need to be accepted in view of the expertise possessed by them, unless there is strong evidence or any other reason to take contrary view and such material is not available in the present case. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. , Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Limited v. Union of India (1980) ELT 679, Parry Confectionery Ltd., Madras v. Government of India (1980) ELT 468, Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. A. V. Borkar, Superintendent, Central Excise (1983) ELT 338 and Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India .