https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287351 A State excise law governing licences, duties, and incidental control over intoxicating drugs survived the extension of central dangerous drugs and drugs legislation to Hyderabad because the central enactments addressed prohibition, standards, manufacture, sale, and distribution, not excise duty collection. The surviving portions of the State Act remained enforceable and could be amended. Chloral hydrate was treated as a narcotic substance capable of notification under the amended Act, so it could be subjected to excise duty and to regulatory controls over licensing, manufacture, possession, sale, import, export, and transport. The challenge to the rules therefore failed. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:45:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287351 A State excise law governing licences, duties, and incidental control over intoxicating drugs survived the extension of central dangerous drugs and drugs legislation to Hyderabad because the central enactments addressed prohibition, standards, manufacture, sale, and distribution, not excise duty collection. The surviving portions of the State Act remained enforceable and could be amended. Chloral hydrate was treated as a narcotic substance capable of notification under the amended Act, so it could be subjected to excise duty and to regulatory controls over licensing, manufacture, possession, sale, import, export, and transport. The challenge to the rules therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287351