Academic challenge to excise notifications ended after rule changes and cessation of manufacture, with merits left undecided.

The controversy over the validity of the impugned excise notifications and rules was treated as academic because the Central rules for Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs were amended to prohibit manufacture and sale of preparations containing more than 12% alcohol, and the respondents admitted they were no longer manufacturing products covered by the notifications. The Court also noted that related constitutional questions on legislative competence, occupied field, and excise control over medicinal preparations were pending before a Constitution Bench. It therefore refrained from expressing a final view on the merits and brought the appeals to an end without a conclusive determination, while preserving limited protection against prosecution for acts done while the High Court decision remained operative.

---

---

Issues: Whether the controversy concerning the validity of the impugned excise notifications and rules still required a final adjudication, or had become academic in view of subsequent statutory developments and admitted facts.

Analysis: The controversy was found to have become academic because, during the pendency of the appeals, the Central rules governing Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs were amended to prohibit manufacture and sale of preparations containing more than 12% alcohol, and the respondents admitted that they were no longer manufacturing products attracting the impugned notifications. The court also noted that the broader constitutional questions on legislative competence, occupied field, and the scope of excise control over medicinal preparations were pending authoritative determination before a Constitution Bench in another matter. In these circumstances, the court refrained from recording a final opinion on the merits of the constitutional challenge.

Conclusion: No final opinion was expressed on the substantive validity of the impugned rules and notification, and the controversy was treated as academic.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were brought to an end without a conclusive merits determination, while preserving a limited protection against prosecution for acts done during the period when the High Court decision remained operative.

---