Homoeopathic medicines exclusion in excise law does not cover parenteral injections under the cognate drug framework.

Where a taxing statute used the undefined technical expression "homoeopathic medicines," the meaning was taken from the cognate regulatory framework under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. On that construction, homoeopathic medicines did not include preparations administered by parenteral route, so homoeopathic injections were outside the excise exclusion in Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Reliance on the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to construe the expression was upheld, and the excise assessment and duty confirmation were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether homoeopathic injections administered by parenteral route were covered by the expression "homoeopathic medicines" so as to attract the exclusion under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the authorities were justified in relying on the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to construe that expression.

Analysis: The taxing enactment and the rules made thereunder did not define "homoeopathic medicines". In that situation, the meaning could properly be gathered from the cognate statute dealing with drugs. The relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Entry 4-A of the Second Schedule, together with Rule 2(dd) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, showed that homoeopathic medicines contemplated by that regulatory framework did not include medicines administered by parenteral route. The exclusion of homoeopathic medicines in the excise tariff could therefore not be extended to homoeopathic injections. The authorities were not faulted for relying on the cognate statute and its rules for construing the disputed expression.

Conclusion: Homoeopathic injections administered by parenteral route were not entitled to the excise exclusion as homoeopathic medicines, and the assessment and confirmation of duty were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit, and the challenge to the excise demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute uses an undefined technical expression, its meaning may be ascertained from the cognate regulatory statute; homoeopathic medicines for excise purposes did not include preparations administered by parenteral route.

---