Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the 10% ceiling imposed on the manufacture of any single restricted medicinal preparation under the L-1 licence was authorised by the Act and Rules.
Analysis: The licensing scheme under Section 6 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act permits production only under licence and subject to restrictions and conditions prescribed by the Rules. Rule 84(2) empowers the licensing authority to satisfy itself about the quantity of alcohol required by a manufacturer and to reduce or refix that quantity where necessary, while Rules 86 and 142 operate only within the limits of prescribed conditions and supplemental instructions. Rule 91(ix) requires disclosure of the preparations proposed to be manufactured, but it does not authorise a quantitative ceiling on any single restricted product. The impugned 10% restriction was imposed to further the prohibition programme and to prevent alleged misuse, yet no rule or statutory provision confers power to impose such a product-wise ceiling on manufacture.
Conclusion: The 10% ceiling on manufacture of any single restricted preparation was not authorised by the Act or the Rules and was invalid.