Repacking and tariff classification of glucose: branded retail packing did not make it a patent or proprietary medicine.

Repacking from bulk to retail packs constitutes manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) only when it relates to patent or proprietary medicines. Glucose was separately classified in the tariff under the heading "Food" and not as a drug or medicinal preparation, so it could not be treated as a patent or proprietary medicine merely because it was repacked in branded containers. The repacking therefore did not attract Tariff Item No. 14-E, and the classification as taxable manufacture for that item was ? Need English only.

---

---

Issues: Whether repacking of glucose into small retail packs amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether glucose could be treated as a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Tariff Item No. 14-E of Schedule I of that Act.

Analysis: The definition of manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) covers repacking from bulk packs to retail packs only in relation to patent or proprietary medicines. The decisive question, therefore, was whether glucose answered that description. The classification scheme in Schedule I showed that glucose was separately and specifically placed under Tariff Item No. 1-E in the heading 'Food', while Tariff Item No. 14-E fell under 'Chemicals' and applied to patent or proprietary medicines, which had to be drug or medicinal preparations. The Court drew support from the definitions of 'drug' and 'patent or proprietary medicines' in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and held that glucose, being separately classified as food, could not reasonably be treated as a patent or proprietary medicine merely because it was repacked in containers bearing a brand name.

Conclusion: Glucose repacked by the petitioner was not taxable under Tariff Item No. 14-E as a patent or proprietary medicine, and the finding that the repacking amounted to manufacture for that purpose was incorrect.

---