Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether medicinal formulations containing 65 mg of Dextropropoxyphene per dosage unit were classifiable as a narcotic drug or narcotic under Section 2(h) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and liable to State Excise Duty.
Analysis: Section 2(h) empowers the Central Government to declare substances as narcotic drugs or narcotics by notification. The notification dated 12 June 1986 excluded preparations for oral use containing not more than 125 mg of Dextropropoxyphene base per dosage unit. The subject formulations admittedly contained only 65 mg per dosage unit, which fell within the exclusion. The earlier Division Bench decision on the same notification and the same drug composition was applied, and the formulation was held not to answer the statutory description of a narcotic drug or narcotic.
Conclusion: The formulations were not narcotic drugs or narcotics under Section 2(h) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and the demand of State Excise Duty was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned demands were quashed, and the petitioners were granted consequential relief and costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification issued under Section 2(h) specifically excludes preparations below a stated dosage threshold, a product falling within that threshold cannot be treated as a narcotic drug or narcotic for excise purposes.