Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF GOA AND ANR.versusM/S. COLFAX LABORATORIES.LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: 2003 INSC 576
Decided: 29 October 2003
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

After‑shave lotions are toilet preparations, the notices are issued under Rule 12, and duty must be computed using the formula in Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act.

Summary

Colfax Laboratories manufactured after‑shave lotions (ASL) under a licence for cosmetics. In 1985 it sought re‑classification of the product as a "medicinal preparation" to obtain a lower excise duty; the Excise Commissioner classified it as medicinal, a decision later challenged. The State issued notices demanding balance duty, claiming the product was a "toilet preparation" and that the notices were issued under Rule 12. The High Court held the product was a toilet preparation, treated the notices as issued under Rule 11 and limited recovery to six months. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court on two points: it held that ASL is a toilet preparation, not a medicinal preparation, and that the notices fall under Rule 12, allowing recovery of the entire deficiency. It also affirmed the use of the formula in Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act for duty calculation and declared the 1985 Commissioner’s order a nullity. Consequently, Colfax’s appeal was dismissed and the State’s appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether after‑shave lotion is a "medicinal preparation" or a "toilet preparation" under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.
Whether the notices issued by the Excise Commissioner are to be treated as issued under Rule 11 or Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956.
What formula governs the quantification of excise duty on the product.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 4(4)(d)
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940s. 18(c), s. 27, s. 3(aaa)

Subjects

medicinal preparationtoilet preparationexcise dutyproduct classificationRule 11Rule 12Central Excise ActDrugs and Cosmetics Actafter‑shave lotiontax recoveryjurisdictionnullity

Judgment

A THE STATE OF. GOA AND
. ANR.
v.
MIS. COLFAX LABORATORIES.LTD. Ai--iD ANR.
- • . , ' . ·;I . ~ " • .J ~ . - . I

OCTOBER. 29, 2003

B (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Medicinal and toilet Preparations (Excise Duty/Act, 1955~ecti0n
2(g) and (k)-After shave; lotion-Manufa'ctitred under· a licen9e for
manufacture of cosmetiC products--Classification_:_Whether it' is 'toil~t
, . . . • I
C preparation' or 'medicinal preparation '-Held:· Since the good is not for
diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or preven'tion of a~y disease b;' disorder,
it not being a durg and hence cannot come within pu"rview. of 'medicinal
preparation '-Ditty liable to be'"/evied on it ~s a· 'toilet prepa~ation '.'....:.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act,. 1940-.:....Sectio~ 3(aaa).l.DAgs and Cosmetics
Rules, 1945--Chapter Vil. '. · ' · · · · 1 ' ., ' " ·
D , ,~ ,1 i.

Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (ExCise Duties) 'Rules, 1955.:...:..
Rules 11and12-'-After Shave Lotion-Duty.ofi-f>aiii by ihanufaeturer till
as
1984 toilet preparation-After the order from
ExCise CommissiOrfer duty
paid as meaicinal preparaiion.c.!..Notice under Sectioh I j /n 199i "demanding
E balance duty on the ·ground that duty should 'have been paid as' toilet
preparation-High Court held that the ·notic~s issuea would be c'onstroed
under Ruli·j I-On appeal, held ."Order ofChn1missioner directing to pay
'the duty 'as· medicinal preparation being 'nuility 'hCIVing been passed a
without jurisdiction is liable to be ignored and Revenue lntitled to ~ecdver
F the deficiency in duty w.ej the date duty was not paid-Since the duties
had not. been short levied through ·inadvertence; ~;r~r, collusion or
misconstruction on' ihe part of Excise 'Officer ~; th~~·ugh'misstatement on
n- •t f". '~ J . ~
f .• Ll I I" i 1 1

part .ofowner, Rule 11 is not applicable~ There being no specific provision
for such case, Sectio~ '12 wil/"apply. ,,. ::· '· · :. · . ·.

G Central Excise Act, 1944-Section 4(4)(d):...:...£:i~ise' du~Rate of-
Calculation-Held: Has to be calculated applying the formula laid down
in Section 4(4)(d).

Respondent-Company manufactured After Shave Lotion, under
H a Licence under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act,
1050
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. 1051

1955 for manufacture of cosmetic products. Till the year 1984 the A
excise duty on the product was on the basis of it being a toilet
preparation. ln 1985 company moved an application before
commissioner of Excise for reclassification of the product as a 'medicinal
preparation' for the purpose oflevy of excise duty. Excise commissioner
issued show cause notice to the company and then by order dated B
23.3.1985 classified the same as 'medicinal preparation'. Another
company which manufactured After Shave Lotion under the loan
licence with the company. The licence issued to it was for manufacture
of cosmetic products. The company started paying duty on the product
at the rate applicable to 'medicinal preparations.'
c
In 1991 Commissioner of Excise issued notices under Rule 12 of
Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 to the
Companies demanding balance of excise duty on the ground that the
duty should have been pai~ as 'toilet preparation'. The Commissioner,
after hearing the parties passed the order holding that After Shave D
Lotions were toilet preparations. Writ Petition against the order
dismissed by High Court, holding that the products are toilet
preparations and Revenue was entitled to recover short paid duty on
account of erroneous classification of the product. However, it held
that the notices issued would be construed in exercise of Rule 11 of the E
Rules and hence the Revenue was entitled to recover the duty within
a period of 6 months immediately proceeding the date of issue of each
of the notices, and that quantification of duty will have to be worked
out by applying the formula as laid down in Section 4(4)(d) of Central
Excise Act, 1944, and consequently excise duty will have to be deducted F
from the wholesale price and the figure arrived at would be the value
. of the excisable goods. Hence the present appeals.

The issues before this Court are :

1. Whether the products in question are 'medicinal preparation' G
or 'toilet preparation'?

2. Whether the notices issued by Excise Commissioner should be
treated to be one under Rule 11 or Rule 12 of Medicinal and Toilet
Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956? H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A 3. What would be the formula for quantification of the duties?

Dismissing the appeal of the Company and allowing that of the
State, the Court

HELD : 1.1. In order to come within the ambit of 'medicinal
B
preparations' the intended use of the article must be for treatment,
mitigation or prevention of disease. If the intended use of the article
is not for any one of the aforesaid purposes, it cannot be described as
a 'medicinal preparation'. [1060-D-E)

c 1.2. 'Disease' means an impairment of the normal state of the
living animal that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital
functions being a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition,
industrial hazards, or climate) or to specific infective agents (as worms
bacteria or viruses) or to inherent defects of the organism (as various
D genetic anomalies) or to combinations of these factors. The process of
shaving does not cause any kind of impairment of the normal state of
a person. It does not in any manner interrupt or modify the performance
of any vital functions of the human body. On a plain interpretation of
the statutory provisions, an after shave lotion (ASL) cannot come
E within the ambit of a "medicinal preparation" as defined in Section
2(g) of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955. The
definition of the terms 'cosmetic' and 'drug' in Drugs and Cosmetics
Act will also show that until the intended use of the article is for
diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or
F disorder, it cannot be a drug. [1060-F-H, 1061-B, 1061-FJ

1.3. No authoritative scientific text has been placed before the Court
to show that only on account of a marginal increase of alcohol content to
62% an ASL will acquire any such property so as to make it a medicinal
preparation within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. The scientific
G literature relied upon by the company-manufacturer regarding the
properties of the alcohol cannot be a safe guide to determine the
characteristic of the products in question. [1061-H, 1062-A)

1.4. In view of its advertisement stating therein that the Company
H was engaged in manufacture of cosmetics (such as also the product in
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. 1053

issue) till as late as December, 1990 the Company itself was giving out A
. that it is engaged in manufacture of cosmetics and not of any medicinal
preparation. (1062-E-FI

BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (19951
Supp. 3 sec 1, distinguished. B
2.1. The licences for manufacture of both the ASLs were as a
cosmetic product and they were throughout renewed for manufacture
of cosmetic product. Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
clearly lays down that no. person shall manufacture any drug except
under and in accordance with the licence issued for such purpose.. C
manufacture of drugs without a licence is an offence under Section 27
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. If as asserted by the company, it was
manufacturing a drug or medicinal preparation it was clearly
committing an offence and was liable for punishment as it had no
licence for the said purpose. There being no provision for a prior D
classification of product under the Act and the Rules made thereunder
the entire proceedings commenced on the basis of the application given
by the Company and culminating with the order of the Commissioner
of Excise are wholly without jurisdiction. The order passed by the
Commissioner of Excise on 23.3.1985 being without jurisdiction is a E
nullity in the eyes of law and is liable to be ignored. (1067-F-H]

2.2. Rule 11 of the Rules will apply when duties or charges have
been short levied through inadvertance, error, collusion or
misconstruction on the part of an excise officer or through misstatement F
as to the quantity or description of such goods on the part of the owner.
After the order dated 23.3.1985 had been passed by the Commissioner
of Excise, the concerned Excise Officer who made the relevant entries
in Form A.R.-2 submitted by the Company could not have taken a
different view and had to proceed on the footing that ASL, was a
medicinal preparation. Being a subordinate officer he was fully bound G
by the order of the highest excise authority of the State. Thereafter,
till 1991 when notices were issued and the matter was finally decided
by the Excise Commissioner, he had to proceed treating the ASL as
medicinal preparation. In the fact situation, the concerned Excise
Officer who made entries in Form AR-12 will be the Excise Officer for lI
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the·purposes of Rule-11 and 12 as the matter was not dealt with by
any other authority. In- such circumstances it cannot be.held-that the
duties or charges had been short levied through inadvertence,. error,
collusion or misconstruction on the part of the concerned Excise
Officer or through misstatement as to the quantity or description of
B such goods on the part of the owner. Hence, Rule ·I I -of the Rules can
have no application to the facts of the case. (1068-D-H, 1069-A]

2.3. Rule I2 confers residuary powers for recovery-of -sums due
to Government. There being no specific provision for a case like the
present one· for collection of duty which has been short levied, the
C provisions of Rule I2 of the Rules will be applicable.There is no period
of limitation prescribed under Rule '12.1 In· view of the ·fact that the
order dated 23.3.I985 of·the Cominissioner of'Excise was an-order
passed wholly without jurisdiction and consequently was a ntillity,-the
Government is entitled to recover.the deficiency in duty w.e.f. the date
/
D the duty was not paid. (1069-B-D] J
'IJ91 .'•

3:As regarding-qualification of duties the view' of the High Court
that-the phrase 'ad valorem' appearing in the column 'rate of duty'
in the Schedule appended to the Act refers to the value of the excisable
E goods and; therdore, it-will have to be :worked out by ·applying the
formula as laid down in· Section 4(4)(d) of Central' Excise 'Act, is
·perfectly correct and calls for no interference. (1069-G-H, 1070A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 414 of
F 2000:
,' '
From die Judgment and Order dated i .4.99 of the Bombay High· Court
at Goa, Panaji in W.P. No. 337 of 1998.

WITH
G
C.A. No. 415-of 2000.

Mukui:Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General;·M.S.'Usgaoncor, Dhruv
Mehta~ Ms. Shalini 'Gu~ta; Mohit Chaudhary and -S:K. Gupta for the
H Appellants. '' · · ·
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 1055
Ashok H. Desai, Vikram Nankani, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, R.N. A
Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Ms. Pragya for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MA THUR, J. : I. Mis Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. and B
State of Goa have preferred these appeals by special leave against the
judgment and order dated 1.4.1999 of High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench),
by which the writ petition preferred by Mis Colfax Laboratories (India)
Ltd. was partly allowed.

2. Mis Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. (for short 'Colfax') was C
granted a licence to manufacture various types of cosmetics including after
shave lotion under the trade mark 'Old Spice' on 15.4.1968 under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. A licence under the Medicinal and Toilet
Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') in form L-
1 for manufacture of 'Old Spice' after shave lotion and cologne for men D
as toilet preparations was granted on 1.4.1969. Till the end of the year 1984
excise duty on 'Old Spice' after shave lotion (hereinafter called as 'ASL')
was paid on the basis that it was a toilet preparation. On 14.1.1985 Colfax
moved an application before the Commissioner of Excise, Government of
Goa for reclassification of Old Spice ASL as a 'medicinal preparation' E
falling under Tariff Item No.l(i)(b) of the Schedule to the Act for the
purpose of levy of excise duty. The Excise Commissioner vide his order
dated 23 .3 .1985 classified the same as 'medicinal preparation'. Subsequently,
by the order dated 12.6.1985 Old Spice ASL was classified as falling within

- the ambit of Item No.l(i)(b) of the Schedule. Colfax thereafter made
application for refund of excess amount of the excise duty paid after
23 .3 .1985 which was allowed by the Commissioner of Excise and orders
F

for refund of the excess amount of the excise duty were passed.

Mis PJM Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. moved an application before the
Drugs Controller, Government of Goa on 14.1.1989 for manufacture of G
some cosmetic products including 'Blue Stratos' ASL under the loan
licence with Mis Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. which was approved and
a licence was issued on 13.2.1989. The Exci~e Commissioner vide order
dated 12. l 0 .1989 approved the price inclusive of duty, the duty component
thereon as well as the maximum price for the products. Mis PJM H ·
.>

1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. started paying duty on Blue Stratos ASL at the
rate applicable to medicinal preparations.

3. On 15.5.1991, the Commissioner of Excise, Goa issued a notice
under Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)
B Rules, 1956 to Colfax to pay balance of excise duty amounting to
Rs.17, 77, 16,361.20 (Rupees seventeen crore, seventy-seven lakh, sixteen
thousand, three hundred sixty one and paise twenty only) within 30 days
from the date of receipt of notice on the ground that w.e.f. 1.4.1985 the
company had paid excise duty on Old Spice range of ASLs as medicinal
preparation though it should have paid duty as toilet preparation. On
C 13 .3 .1991, a notice was issued to Mis PJM Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. to
pay balance of excise duty amounting to Rs.92,43.684.08 (Rupees ninetey
J
two lakh, forty three thousand, six hundred eighty four and paise eight
only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice on the ground that
it had paid excise duty on Blue Stratos ASL as a medicinal preparation
D though it should have paid duty as toilet preparation.

4. Colfax then filed Writ Petition Nos.109of1991 and 351 of 1991
challenging the aforesaid notices before the Bombay High Court· (Goa
Bench) which were disposed of with a direction to the Excise Commissioner
E to treat the demand notices as show cause notices and thereafter to pass
a final order after giving the Company an opportunity of hearing. It was
left open for the Excise Commissioner to supplement the said notice by
additional grounds or materials, ifhe so desired. Thereafter, supplementary
memorandum were issued by the Excise Commissioner on 6.9.1991 and
30.9.1991 to which Colfax gave a reply. The Excise Commissioner after
F hearing the parties gave his decision on 7.11.1991 which was challenged
in appeal by the State Government and Colfax· preferred Writ Petition
No.84 of 1992 before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated
21.12.1994 directed the Excise Commissioner to decide all the issues
afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the company. The Excise
G Commissioner, after hearing the parties passed a detailed order on 12.8.1998
holding that after shave lotions were toilet preparations and the company
was liable to pay excise duty as mentioned in the demand notices dated
13 .3 .1991 and 15 .5 .1991, which was challenged by Colfax by filing Writ
Petition No.337 of I 998. - The High Court in its impugned order dated
H 1.4.1999 has held that after shave lotions are toilet preparations and the
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1057

Revenue was entitled to recover short paid duty on account of erroneous A
classification of the aforesaid goods. The notices issued will have to be
construed in exercise of power under Rule 11 of the Rules. Thus, the
Revenue would be entitled to recover short paid duty on the goods cleared
for which the duty was short paid within a period of six months
immediately preceding the date of issue of each of the notices. It has been B.
further held that the phrase 'ad valorem' appearing in the column 'rate of
duty' in the Schedule appended to the Act refers to the value of excisable
goods and, therefore, it will have to be worked out by applying the formula
as laid down in Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
and consequently, the excise duty will have to be deducted from the
wholesale price and the figure arrived at would be the value of the excisable C
goods.

5. Mis Colfax has preferred Civil Appeal No.415 of2000 challenging
the finding of the High Court that 'Old Spice' and 'Blue Stratos' ASLs are
toilet preparations and not medicinal preparations. The State of Goa has D
preferred Civil Appeal No.414 of 2000 challenging the remaining part of
the order of the High Court, wherein the notices have been directed to be
treated to be under Rule 11 of the Rules and their right to recover the short
paid duty has been restricted to a period of six months immediately
preceding the date of issue of notices and also the direction regarding E
manner of calculation of excise duty out of the wholesale price at which
the goods in question were sold.

6. We will first consider the appeal preferred by Colfax, wherein
challenge has been made to the finding of the High Court that ASLs are
not medicinal preparations but are toilet preparations. Shri Ashok Desai, F
learned senior counsel for Colfax has submitted that the term 'medicinal
preparation' h3s been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act and it includes
all drugs which are a remedy or prescription intended to be used for or in
the treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or
animals. 'Toilet preparation' has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act G
and it means any preparation which is intended to be used in the toilet of
the human body or any substance intended to cleanse, improve or alter the
complexion, skin, hair or teeth and includes deodorants and perfumes.
Learned counsel has submitted that the basic difference between the
medicinal preparation and toilet preparation is the intent and purpose for H

..
,
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A which it is used. If the article is used for the treatment, mitigation or
prevention of disease, it is a medicinal preparation but if it is used to
cleanse, improve or alter the complexion, skin, hair or teeth, etc. then it
is a toilet preparation. According to Colfax its ASL contains alcohol - 62%,
Propylene glycol - 5%, Benzyl alcohol - 0.5% and the remaining is water.
B Learned counsel has further urged that the concentration of alcohol in
various ASLs manufactured by other companies is less than 60% whilst
that manufactured by Colfax it is 62% and in fact actual test .results show
that it is 63%. Where the alcohol is less than 60% in any ASL, it cannot
have any medicinal properties and it will be treated as a toilet preparation,
but where the concentration is more than 60%, it will have medicinal
C properties. In this connection Shri Desai has referred to British
Pharmacopoeia Codex and Remington Pharmaceutical-. Science to show
that if strength of alcohol increases beyond 60% to 90% and ·beyond 90%,
it has no microbiolisation. Reference has also been made to Martindale
Pharmacopoeia to show that benzyl alcohol has also bactericidal properties.
D Propylene glycol is a humectant and it promotes retention of moisture. It
has been urged that after shaving skin may get fungus and, therefore,
propylene glycol is used as moisturizer. Ethyle alcohol in a concentration
of 62% to 65% has bactericidal effects. It is astringent to prevent
penetration of bacterias and, therefore, it has antiseptic properties. Propylene
E glycol is a humectant as well as inhibitant to fungus. Benzyl alcohol is
a mild anaesthetic and has antiseptic properties. Therefore, composition of
these products in the above mentioned proportion, it is contended, makes
Old Spice and Blue Stratos ASLs made by the company as medicinal
products.

F 7. Shri M. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate for the State of Goa,
has submitted that Colfax had a licence to manufacture cosmetics and even
the licence applied in the year 1989 for manufacture of Blue Stratos ASL
for PJM was also for a cosmetic product. Colfax also admits that such after
shave lotions which have a concentration of alcohol below 60% are toilet
G preparations. Merely because the alcohol content is slightly increased and
it goes up to 62% or 63%, it would not mean that the same will become
a medicinal preparation. Learned counsel has submitted that ASL is
basically an acqueous alcohol solution containing a perfume. The popular
brands of ASLs in UK contain 50% to 70% of ethyl alcohol by weight and
H in United States the volume of alcohol recommended for ASLs is 40% to
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1059

60%. Propylene glycol is preferred because it has low viscocity and high A
volatility. Learned counsel has also laid stress upon the fact that after shave
lotions contain perfume as a key component and nonnally perfume is not
used in a medicinal preparation. It has thus been urged that the products
Old Spice and Blue Stratos manufactured by Colfax are pure and simple
toilet preparations and cannot be said to be medicinal preparations by any B
stretch of imagination.

8. In order to appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel
for the parties, it is necessary to have in mind the relevant provisions
of the Statute under which the licence to manufacture the product is
granted and the excise duties are levied. Section 2(a), 2(c), 2(g) and 2(k) C
of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 read
as under:

Section 2 (a) 'alcohol' means ethyl alcohol of any strength and
purity having chemical composition C2H 50H ; D
(c) 'dutiable goods' means the medicinal and toilet preparations
specified in the schedule as being subject to the duties of excise
levied under this Act;

(g) 'medicinal preparation' includes all drugs which are a remedy E
or prescription' prepared for internal or external use of human
beings or animals and all su!Jstances intended to be used for or
in the treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human
beings or animals;
F
(k) 'toilet preparation' means any preparation which is intended
for use in the toilet of the human body or in perfuming apparel
of any description, or any substance intended to cleanse, improve
or alter the complexion, skin, hair or teeth, and includes deodorants
and perfumes.
G
Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Act is the charging section and
it lays down that there shall be levied duties of excise at the rates specified
in the Schedule on all dutiable goods manufactured in India. Sub-section
(3) of Section 3 lays down that subject to other provisions contained in the
Act, the duties aforesaid shall be collected in such manner as may be H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A prescribed. Item 1(i)(b) of the Schedule provides that the rate of duty on
'allopathic medicinal preparations' (other than patent or proprietory
medicines) would be Rs. IO per litre of pure alcohol content. Item No.4
of the Schedule deals with toilet preparations and at the relevant time rate
of duty for toilet preparations containing alcohol was 100% ad valorem.
B Section 6 of the Act lays down that no person shall engage in the
production or manufacture of any dutiable goods or of any specified
components, parts or ingredients of such goods except under the authority
and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under
the Act. Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 lays down
that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf
C manufacture for sale or for distribution or sale or stock or exhibit or offer
for sale or distribute any drug or cosmetic except under and in accordance
with the conditions of the licence issued for such. purpose. The definition
of the term 'medicinal preparation' in Section 2(g) of the Act shows that
it will include all such drugs which are a remedy or prescription prepared
D for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all sflbstance
intended to be used for or in the treatment, mitigation or prevention of
disease in human beings or animals. Therefore, in order to come within
the ambit of 'medicinal preparations' the intended use of the article must
be for treatment, mitigation or prevention of diseqse. The article must be
E used for the purpose of either curing or mitigating the disease after its
symptoms have appeared or in prevention of any disease. If the intended
use of the article is not for any one of the aforesaid purposes, it cannot
be described as a 'medicinal preparation'. Therefore, the main question to
be examined is whether 'shaving' results in some kind of a disease which
F requires treatment by a medicine so that it may be cured or its effect is
mitigated or at least an effort has to be made to prevent the happening of
such disease by taking a preventive medicine. 'Disease' means an impairment
of the normal state of the living animal that interrupts or modifies the
performance of the vital functions being a response to environmental
factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate) or to specific
G infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses) or to inherent defects of
the organism (as various genetic anomalies) or to combinations of these
factors. The process of shaving does not cause any kind of impairment of
the normal state of a person. It does not in any manner interrupt or modify
the performance of any vital functions of the human body. Many people
H have been shaving regularly every day fo; 40-50 years but no one has ever
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1061
suffered any kind of a disease. If the process of shaving would have A
resulted in some kind of a disease, the best preventive measure to be
adopted was not to shave. The number of persons who shave every day
and have been shaving for years would run into crores even in our own
country and except for a very insignificant percentage thereof, who belong
to affluent class, no one uses any after shave lotion. But they have not B
suffered any disease. Therefore, on a plain interpretation of the statutory
provisions an after shave lotion cannot come within the ambit of a
"medicinal preparation" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act.

9. Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act defines a 'cosmetic'
and it means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed C
on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body or any part
thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the
appearance, and includes any article intended for use as a component of
cosmetic. Section 3(b) of the same Act gives a very exhaustive definition
of 'drug'. Sub-clause (i) thereof lays down that drug may include all D
medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all
substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation
or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals,
including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling
insects like mosquitoes. Sub-clause (ii) thereof lays down that drug will E
include such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure
or any function of human body or intended to be used for the purpose of
destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in human beings or
animals as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government
by notification in the Official Gazette. The definition of the terms
'cosmetic' and 'drug' in this Act will also show that until the intended use F
of the article is for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any
disea~ or disorder, it cannot be a drug.

I 0. The technical material produced by Colfax shows that various
kinds of after shave lotions (Aqua Velva, Park Avenue, Monarch, Emami,, G
etc.) generally contain concentration of alcohol below 60%. The only
distinguishing feature pointed out by Colfax is that the alcohol content of
the ASLs manufactured by it, viz., Old Spice and Blue Stratos is 62%. No
authoritative scientific text has been placed before us to show that only on
account of a marginal increase of alcohol content to 62% an ASL will H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A acquire any such property so as to make it a medicinal preparation within
the meaning of Section 2(g) of ~he Act. It may be noted that according to .-
\
Colfax the ASLs manufactured by it contain al~ohol - 62%, Propylene_
Glycol - 5%, Ben_zyl alcohol - 0._5% ?nd t_h_e rell)_aining 32.5% is w_ater.
They also contain some perfume. According to f:larry's Cosmetico!ogy,
B after shave lotion is basi~ally an acqueous alcohol solution containing a
perfume. The desired balance of 'mild astringency' and 'coolness' is
achieved by controlling ratio of ethyl alcohol to water. Popular bran~s of
after shave lotions in UK contain 50% to 75% of ethyl alcohol by weight.
In the United States also volume of alcohol in after shave lotions range
from 40% to 60%. It is necessary to emphasise that we ar_e not con~erned
C here with the properties of alcohol simplicitor but a solution which contains
62% alcohol and 33% water. Th_e said solution on account of presence of
water cannot yield the same result as that of alcohol.simplicitor. Even a
small percentage of presence of one ingredient may completely alter the
chemical prop.erties of another ingredient. Jherefo~_e, the scientific lit_erature
D relied upon by the learned counsel for Colfax in support of his submission
regarding th_e prop_erties of the _al~ohol cannot be a safe guide to determine
the characteristic of the products Old Spice and Blue Stratos.

11. There is another asp_ect of the matter which also deserv_es to be
E noticed. The Company (Colfax) issued an advertisement in Dec_ember,
1990 inviting deposits from public for fj.xed period an~ offering 14%
inter_est. In the details and particulars submitted as per the <;::ompanies
(Acceptance of peposits) Rul_e, 1975, it was stated that the Company is
engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics such as Old Spic_e ASL, Cologne,
F etc. Ther_efore, till as late as D_e~_ember, 1990, th_e ~ompany itself was
giving out that it is engaged in manufa~ture of ~osm_etics find not of any
medicinal preparation.

12. Shri Ashok Desai h_as placed great reliance in support of his
submission on BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
G [1995] Supp. 3 sec I, wher_ein the de~~sion ofCE9AT h9lding 'Selsun'
Shampoo as a ~osm~ti~ pr9~u~t was rev_ersed ~y this ~purt ~nd it was held
to be a drug or medi~in~. The judgment shows that the <;::ourt w~nt into
the chemical ~?m pon~nts pf th~ i:f1icle, the n?tur~ <;>fuse find ~h~ ~on tents
of the label on the bottle. The main factors which w_eighed with th~ Court
H were : (i) the arJ:i~le was use~ f?r tr_e?tm_ent of a diseas_e 1<nown as dandruff;
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1063

(ii) it was manufactured under a drug licence; (iii) the Food and Drugs A
Administration had certified it as a 'drug'; (iv) it was sold only on a
doctor's prescription and was used as a medicine; (v) it was marketed as
a patent or proprietary medicine through registered phannacists who hold
valid drug licence and not by any dealer like other shampoos; (vi) it was
included as a drug in the US Phannacopoeia and other standard books and B
treatises; and (vii) the label on the bottle specifically mentioned that it was
a poison, should be used twice weekly and was for external use only and
should be kept out of the eyes and away from the children. None of these
factors are present in the case in hand and, therefore, the decision cited can
be of no assistance at all to the company.
c
13. The Excise Commissioner, Goa, after a detailed consideration of
scientific and technical material, has recorded a finding that ASLs
manufactured by Colfax are 'toilet preparations' within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the Act. The High Court has also examined the matter
threadbare and has arrived at the same finding. We find absolutely no D
reason to disagree with the view taken by the Excise Commissioner, who
is an expert in the field. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel
for Colfax that Old Spice and Blue Stratos ASLs are medicinal preparations
and not toilet preparations, has no substance and has to be rejected.
E
14. The second question which requires consideration is whether the
notices issued by the Excise Commissioner on 13.3.1991 and 15.5.1991
requiring Colfax to deposit the balance of excise duty should be treated
to be one under Rule 11 or Rule 12 of the Rules. In the notices it is
specifically mentioned that the same are being issued in exercise of power F
under Rule 12 of the Rules. The Excise Commissioner in his order dated
12.8.1998 held that the balance amount of excise duty has to be paid w.e.f.
23.3.1985, when the product was classified as medicinal preparation. The
High Court has held that the notices should be treated to have been issued
under Rule 11 of the Rules and the balance amount of excise duty can be
recovered only for a period of six months immediately preceding the date G
of issue of each of the notices.

15. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Addl. Solicitor General and Shri M.
Usgaonkar, learned· Senior Advocate for the State of Goa, have strenuously
urged that the case in hand is squarely covered by Rule 12 of the Rules H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A and the Excise Commissioner was fully justified in directing recovery of
balance amount of duty w.e.f. 23.3.1985, when the order was passed
holding the product ASL as a medicinal preparation and the company
started paying excise duty on its basis and the view to the contrary taken
by the High Court is not correct. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel
B for the company has, on the other hand, submitted that the case is covered
by Rule 11 of the Rules and Rule 12, which is a residuary provision, can
have no application and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court in
that regard is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.

16. Before examining the rival contentions, it will be useful to take
·c note of the scheme of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)
Rules, 1955 (for short 'Rules). Sub-rule (I) of Rule 9 provides that no
dutiable goods shall be removed from any place where they are manufactured
or any premises appurtenant thereto which may be specified by the Excise
Commissioner in this behalf, whether for consumption, export or
D manufacture of any other commodity in or outside such place until the
excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner
as is prescribed in these Rules or as the Excise Commissioner may require.
Rule 81 lays down that when the licensee desires to remove goods on
payment of duty, he shall make an application in Form A.R.-2, in triplicate,
E to the officer-in-charge or the proper officer, as the case may be, at least
twelve hours before he intends to remove the goods. The officer shall,
thereupon, assess the amount of duty leviable on the goods and on
production of evidence that the sum has been paid into a treasury or the
sum has been debited to the account-current, as the case may be, shall allow
F the goods to be cleared. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 provides that if any dutiable
goods are in contravention of Sub-rule ( 1) deposited in, or removed from,
any place specified therein, the manufacturer thereof shall pay the duty
leviable on such goods and shall also be liable to a penalty to be determined
by the Excise Commissioner which may extend to two thousand rupees and
such goods shall also to be liable to confiscation. Sub-rule (I) of Rule 40
G and Rule 81 read as under :

Rule 40. Issue from a bonded manufactory ( 1) Issues of alcoholic
preparations and preparations containing opium, Indian hemp or
other narcotic drugs and narcotics shall be made from a bonded
H manufactory on payment of duty. The licensee shall present
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. {G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1065

before the officer-in-charge an application in Form A.R.-2 A
signed by him or by his authorised representative. The officer-in-
charge shall, after checking the entries and realizing the duty
payable, allow the required quantities to be removed after issuing
a permit:
B
Provided that issues to another bonded warehouse shall be
made without payment of duty under proper security governed by
the rules in Chapters VII and VIII.

Rule 81. Ciearance on payment ofduty. When the licensee desires C
to remove goods on payment of duty, he shall make an application
in Form A.R.-2, in triplicate, to the officer-in-charge or the proper
officer, as the case may be, at least twelve hours before he is
intended to remove the goods. The officer shall, thereupon, a~sess
the amount of duty leviable on the goods and on production of
evidence that the sum has been paid into a treasury or the sum D
has been debited to the account-current, as the case may be, shall
allow the goods to be cleared.

Form A.R.-2 is the prescribed proforma of application for clearance
on payment of duty from bonded manufactory/warehouse and it is in three E
parts. The first part deals with the description of goods, their contents and
the amount of excise duty. This portion has to be filled in by the owner
of the bonded manufactory or his authorised agent. The second part is
Assessment Memorandum, wherein the total number of containers, quantity
of goods, rate of duty and total duty payable has to be mentioned and has F
to be signed by the officer-in-charge of the bonded manufactory/warehouse.
The third part relates to the receipt of amount of excise duty in the treasury
which has to be signed by the concerned officer of the treasury/bank. The
combined effect of Rules, 9, 40 and 81 is that every time when a
manufacturer or licensee desires to remove goods, he has to make an
application in form A.R.-2 in triplicate to the officer-in-charge. The officer G
has to then assess the amount of duty leviable on the goods which has to
be deposited in the treasury. The goods can be cleared only after payment
or deposit of the assessed duty. If a manufacturer or licensee is aggrieved
by an order of the Excise Officer, he has got a right of appeal to the Excise
Commissioner or to the State Government, as the case may be, under Rule H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A .127 of the Rules and there is a further right of revision under Rule 128.
The scheme of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules
is entirely different from Chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,
which deal with removal of excisable goods on determination of duty by
producers, manufacturers or private warehouse. This chapter contains the
B provisions for the self removal of excisable goods. The rules in Chapter
VII-A pennits an assessee to remove excisable goods without any physical
supervision. The assessee has to himself determine the duty payable and
~!ear -the goods under .a gate pass. He is required to file monthly returns
of the goods cleared to the concerned Excise Officer. In essence, the
C provisions of these Rules enable the removal of notified excisable goods
by a manufacturer thereof on payment of a sum determined as duty on the
basis of broad decisions given to him by approved officers of the
department. The assessee has to file the declaration of the goods proposed
to be manufactured by him giving the description thereof, the item number
of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act under which such goods
D fall, the rate of duty leviable on each of such goods and such other
particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioner vide Rule 173-B of
the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In fact, Rule 173-B specifically provides
that the proper officer shall after such inquiry, as he deems fit, approve
the list with such modifications as are considered necessary and return one
E copy of the approved list to the assessee who shall, unless otherwise
direc~ed by the proper officer, determine the duty payable on goods
intended to be removed in accordance with such list. Rule 173-B also
provides that when the dispute about the rate of duty has been finalised
and a modification of the rate or rates of duty is necessitated for any reason,
F the proper officer shall make such modification and inform the assessee
accordingly. Under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)
Rules, 1955, the Excise Commissioner has no independent power of
classification. The Excise Officer has to assess the duty every time
when the manufacturer or licensee applies in Form A.R.-2 for removal of
goods. If the manufacturer or licensee is aggrieved by the assessment so
G made, he can prefer an appeal under Rule 127 and has also a right of
revision.

17. As mentioned earlier, Colfax moved an application on 14.2.1968
for grant of a cosmetic licence for Old Spice ASL. The Assistant Drugs
H Controller granted a cosmetics licence for manufacture of Old Spice ASL
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1067

on 15.4. 1968. The licence was renewed from time to time as a toilet A
preparation. Colfax continued to pay excise duty on ASL as a toilet
preparation till the end of I 984. It was for the first time on 14.1.1985 that
Colfax moved an application before the Commissioner of State Excise,
Government of Goa stating that their product ASL is essentially a
medicinal preparation and should be classified under Tariff Item No. I (i)(b) B
of the Schedule appended to the Act and a prayer was made to reclassify
the product. The Commissioner of Excise after noticing the contention of
Colfax sent a reply on 24. I .1985 requiring Colfax to show cause as to why
its request should not be rejected in toto. Colfax gave a reply and thereafter
the Commissioner of Excise passed an order on 23.3.1985 holding that
After Shave Lotion is to be classified as a 'Medicinal' preparation and not C
as a 'Toilet Preparation' under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations
(Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and the order shall be effective from the date
of issue of the same.

Mis PJM Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. had moved an application Qefore D
the Drugs Controller, Government of Goa on 14.1.1989 for manufacture
of Blue Stratos ASL under a loan licence with Mis Colfax Laboratories
(India) Ltd. and in this application they clearly mentioned that they want
to manufacture cosmetic products. Colfax sent a letter to M/s PJM
Pharmac~uticals Pvt. Ltd. on 2.2.1989 and in the last paragraph of the letter E
it was stated "We undertake further to keep record of alcohol consumed
for the manufacture of your product and pay excise duty as specified by
the State Excise Department at the time of dispatch on your behalf." In the
licence issued by the Drugs Controller, Blue Stratos ASL was described
as a cosmetic product. The licences for manufacture of both the ASLs
namely Old Spice and Blue Stratos were as a cosmetic product and they F
were throughout renewed for manufacture of cosmetic product. At no stage
Colfax had any licence to manufacture any medicinal preparation or drug.
Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act clearly lays down that no
person shall manufacture any drug except under and in accordance with
the licence issued for such purpose. A detailed procedure for grant of G
licence for manufacture of drugs is given in Chapter VII of Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Manufacture of drugs without a licence is an
offence under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the person
so manufacturing is liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one year but may extend to two years with H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A fine. If as asserted by Colfax it was manufacturing a drug or medicinal
preparation it was clearly committing an offence and was liable for
punishment as it had no licence for the said purpose. In spite of these facts
a very strange procedure was adopted by the Commissioner of Excise, Goa
in entertaining an application from Colfax for reclassifying its products,
B issuing a notice to it to show cause why its request should not be rejected
and thereafter passing an order on 23.3.1985 classifying the ASL as a
medicinal preparation and not as a toilet preparation under the Act. There
was no requirement in law to issue a show cause notice before rejecting
such an application. There being no provision for a prior classification of
C product under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act
and the Rules made thereunder the entire proceedings commenced on the
basis of the application given by Colfax and culminating with the order
of the Commissioner of Excise are wholly without jurisdiction. The order
passed by the Commissioner of Excise on 23.3.1985 being without
jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law and is liable to be ignored.
D
18. Rule 11 of the Rules will apply when duties or charge have been
short levied through inadvertence, error, collusion or misconstruction on
the part of an excise officer or through misstatement as to the quantity or
description of such goods on the part of the owner. After the order dated
E 23 .3 .1985 had been passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Goa, the
concerned Excise Officer who made the relevant entries in Form A.R.-2
"' "- submitted by Colfax could not have taken a different view and had to
proceed on the footing that ASL was a medicinal preparation. Being a
subordinate officer he was fully bound by the order of the highest excise
F _authority of the State. Thereafter, till 1991 when notices were issued and
tlie"!P,atter was finally decided by the Excise Commissioner, he had to
·proceed treating the ASL as medicinal preparation. In the fact situation,
the concerned Excise Officer who made entries in Form AR-12 will be the
Excise Officer for the purposes of Rule 11 and 12 as the matter was not
dealt with by any other authority. In such circumstances it cannot be held
G that the duties or charge had been short levied through inadvertence, error,
collusion or misconstruction on the part of the concerned Excise Officer
or through misstatement as to the quantity or description of such goods on
the part of the owner. Collusion means a secret agreement for a fraudulent
purpose or a secret or dishonest arrangement in fraud of the rights of
H another. It is a deceitful agreement between two or more persons for some
STATE v. COLFAX LABORATORIES LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1069
evil purpose, such as to defraud a third person of his rights. The concerned A
Excise officer who made the relevant entries in Form A.R.-2 and cleared
the goods at the spot being a subordinate officer had absolutely no option
but to act in accordance with the order dated 23.3.1985 of the Commissioner
of Excise. In these circumstances Rule 11 of the Rules can have no
application to the facts of the case. Rule 12 confers residuary powers for B
recovery of sums due to Government. It provides that where the Rules do
not make any specific provision for the collection of any duty or of any
deficiency in duty, if the duty has, for any reason, been short levied or
of any other sum of any kind payable to the collecting Government under
the Act or the Rules, such duty, deficiency in duty or sum shall, on written C
demand made by the appropriate officer be paid to such person and at such
time and place as the proper officer may specify. There being no specific
provision for a case like the present one for collection of duty which has
been short levied, the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules will be applicable.
There is no period of limitation prescribed under Rule 12. In view of the
fact that the order dated 23 .3 .1985 of the Commissioner of Excise was an D
order passed wholly without jurisdiction and consequently was a nullity,
the Government is entitled to recover the deficiency in duty w.e.f. the said
date. The ratio of Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Ltd, [1997] 7
SCC 633, reliance on which was placed by Shri Desai, can have no
application here as the said case turned on the interpretation of Rules 10, . E
173-B and 173-C of Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereunder the whole
scheme is different as discussed earlier. The view taken by the Excise
Commissioner on this point in his order dated 12.8.1998 is, therefore,
perfectly correct. The High Court clearly erred in setting aside the order
of the Excise Commissioner and in directing that the notices be treated to F
have been issued under Rule 11 of the Rules. The order passed by the High
Court in this regard is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

19. The third point relates to the quantification of duties done by the
Excise Commissioner. The learned senior counsel for Colfax has submitted
,;
that in case of a product which has a cum-duty price, the assessment is G
required to be done on the basis of wholesale price less excise duty payable,
as provided under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Learned Additional Solicitor and learned Senior Advocate for the State of
Goa have urged that the chart annexed to the show cause notices takes into
account the prices indicated by the manufacturer after excluding the duty H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A and its on this price that the excise duty has to be worked out. The High ·
Court has placed· reliance upon a decision of this Court in Govt. of India
v. Madras Rubber Factory, (~975). 77 ELT 433 for computation of
assessable value in a cum-duty price. It has held that the phrase 'ad
valorem' appearing in the column 'rate of duty' in the Schedule appended
B' to the Act refers to the value of the excisable goods and, therefore, it will
have to be worked out by applying- the formula as laid down in Section
4(4 )(d) of Central Excise Act. We are of the opinion that the view taken
by the High C!:ourt is perfectly correct- and calls for no interference.
..
. 2·0. In the resulti- Civil- Appeal No.415 of 2000 filed by Mis Colfax
C Laborafories (fodia) Ltd: i~· dismissed with costs. Civil {\ppeal No.414
0(2000 filed: by State' of G·oa: is partly allowed; The judgment and order
o(tlie'.High Gourt in: so' far-as· it holds that notices dated· 13:3.1991 and'
f5:5.I991,-though purported"fo have been issued under Rule 12, would.
have to be consfrued'.as having been issued in the exercise of powers under
J} Rule· ff of the said: Rules and' that tlie Government is entitled to recover
the short paid duty on' tlie' goods cleared ortly for" a peiiod 1of six· months
irrtmedlately preceding the date· of each notice is set aside. The Government
will be·entitled'to recover the'eii.tire·arh.ount-ofduty which has been short
levied' in accordance with the order of Excise Gommissioner dated
1

E l2.8J998.
K.Kf.: c.A. No: 4 !'4/2000 partly allowed.
C.A. No: 415i2000 dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "medicinal preparation"Sign in to search