Prima facie evidence of synthetic ingredients defeats quashment of excise-duty evasion complaints over claimed ayurvedic product.

Criminal complaints for alleged excise-duty evasion were sustained because the record disclosed prima facie material that the product was not shown to be an ayurvedic preparation. The court noted that the distinction between ayurvedic and synthetic composition had to be tested against inspection materials, the chemical examiner's report, and supplier statements, which indicated the presence and purchase of synthetic raw materials in the manufacturing premises. The common-parlance and ingredient-based precedent relied on by the petitioners was treated as inapplicable on these facts, and the complaints and memo of evidence were found sufficient to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaints for alleged evasion of central excise duty were liable to be quashed on the ground that the product manufactured by the petitioners was an ayurvedic preparation and not a synthetic one.

Analysis: The distinction between ayurvedic and synthetic composition had to be assessed on the materials found during inspection, the chemical examiner's report, and the statements of suppliers. The authorities relied on the presence of synthetic raw materials in the manufacturing premises and on the surrounding evidence to show that the product was being projected as ayurvedic despite containing only synthetic materials. The precedent principles on common parlance and ingredients were held inapplicable on the facts because the petitioners were not shown to have extracted synthetic elements from herbal sources; rather, the materials found were directly purchased synthetics. On the available record, the complaint and memo of evidence disclosed sufficient prima facie material for trial.

Conclusion: The petitions to quash the criminal complaints were not liable to be allowed, and the proceedings were sustained.

---