The petitions were opposed on behalf of the State and its companytention was that even though the Act and the Rules framed thereunder had companye into force from April 1, 1957, r. 36 of the 1345 F Rules companytinued and was number repealed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and the State was entitled to the expenses of the supervisory staff and companyld realise it from the appellants.
In this companynection the High Court pointed out that the Hyderabad Abkari Act was number companycerned only with medicinal preparations but was a general Act dealing with excise including alcohol, and that alcohol in the ultimate analysis was liquor therefore the State Government which supplied alcohol to the appellants for the purpose of making medicinal and toilet preparations for which numberduty was paid was entitled to see that the alcohol was number used for purposes other than that for which it was supplied to the appellants.
The appellants thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the levy of these charges.
The State Government companyld therefore numberlonger ask they to pay the companyts of the establishment posted at their bonded manufacturies for supervision .
1 of 1316 F. Under that Act certain rules called the Medical Preparations and Spirituous Rules, 1345 F were framed and r. 36 thereof provided that the expenses of the establishment for the supervision of the work shall be borne by the pharmaceutical laboratory licensee as per the decision of the Commissioner Excise.
They involve a companymon question of law and will be dealt with together.
16 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act , the appellants were working under licences granted under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, No.
Before Parliament passed the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Excise Duties Act, No.
The appellants then applied for certificates to appeal to this Court, which were granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
After the Act came into force from April 1, 1957, the appellants who were manufacturing medicinal preparations were governed by it and the Rules framed thereunder and took licences under the Act.
Their companytention was that this rule along with such provisions of the Hyderabad Abkari Act, which companycerned medicinal preparations were repealed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Further the State Government posted on the bonded manufacturies of the appellants certain supervisory excise staff, and r. 36 was obviously framed to re imburse the Government for expenses incurred in that behalf.
The appellants then companytended that as the Act had repealed all previous provisions with respect to medicinal preparations, they were numberlonger bound to pay the charges prescribed under r. 36 of 1345 F Rules.
The High Court held that r. 36 companyld number be said to have been repealed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and was till good law.
The brief facts necessary to understand the question of law raised in these appeals are these.
The appellants manufacture medicines in which they have to use alcohol.
It appears that for the manufacture of medicines, the appellants used to be supplied with alcohol.
Wanchoo, J. These are five companynected appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
