DABUR INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
Homeodent tooth paste is a homeopathic preparation as well as a toilet preparation; since it contains alcohol via mother tincture, it is liable to excise duty under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, as determined by the authorities. Refund applications for duty paid under the 1944 Act should be entertained by the Central Government, with the limitation period under section 11B of the 1944 Act waived for this case; administrative machinery under Article 263 should be considered to settle similar disputes between State and Central authorities.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Dabur India Limited; Petitioner: Sharda Boiron Laboratories Ltd.; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Central Government
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 12 July 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition (civil) and Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Final Decision
- Outcome
- Petitions dismissed, impugned excise order upheld, refund applications permitted subject to directions.
- Legal Topics
- Classification of Goods, Excise Duty, Overlapping Taxation, Refund of Excise Duty, Principles of Natural Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dabur India Limited
Petitioner
Sharda Boiron Laboratories Ltd.
Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh
Respondent
Central Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) and Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether 'Homeodent' tooth paste is a homeopathic medicine or toilet preparation
- 2 Whether 'Homeodent' is liable to excise duty under the 1955 Act or 1944 Act
- 3 Whether the presence of alcohol in 'Homeodent' attracts duty under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955
Ratio Decidendi
Homeodent tooth paste is a homeopathic preparation as well as a toilet preparation; since it contains alcohol via mother tincture, it is liable to excise duty under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, as determined by the authorities. Refund applications for duty paid under the 1944 Act should be entertained by the Central Government, with the limitation period under section 11B of the 1944 Act waived for this case; administrative machinery under Article 263 should be considered to settle similar disputes between State and Central authorities.
Court Disposition
Petitions dismissed, impugned excise order upheld, refund applications permitted subject to directions.
Orders
- District Excise Officer's order dated 18 January 1989 to be given effect.
- If refund application made for duty paid under the 1944 Act, it must be considered by Central Government; limitation under section 11B not to apply for this case, application to be made within four months.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment