Judgment :- This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Tuesday 7th day of January 1969 and this day upon pursuing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 7-6-1966 and made herein, and the Counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to assessment for Rs. 6056.58 issued under Central Excise Series No. 56A Serial No. E/63, 65502, dated 28-4-1966 on the file of the Respondent and comprised in the return of the respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E.R. Krishnan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. S. Ramasubramanyam, the Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent, the Court made the following. 2.The petitioner is aggrieved against the demand made against her for excise duty in respect of the manufacture of a preparation labelled and sold by the petitioner as "Vimtone Eucalyptus Oil". The Excise duty that was demanded was under Item 14E of the Schedule I of the Central Excise Act of 1944, as amended by the Finance Act, 1962. 10% ad valorem excise duty was allowed to be levied under that item on "patent or proprietary medicines", "not containing alcohol or other narcotic drugs. In the Explanation which gave a clue to the meaning of the term 'patent or proprietary medicine' it is stated that the term would mean any drug or medicinal preparation in whatever form for use in the internal or external treatment of human being which bears either on itself or on its container or both, a name which is not specified in a monograph in a pharmacopoeia, or which is the brand name, that is, the name of a registered trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, or any other mark such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words, or any writing which is used in relation to that medicine for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate the connection in the course of trade between the medicine and some person having the right either as proprietor or otherwise to use the name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. Now, the product in this case was bottled and put in cardboard cartons which contained the picture of a child with the following particulars among others." * Vimtone Oil of Eucalyptus I.P. For Cold, Headache and Pains - Repacked : Dentone Chemical Works, No. 13, Kondi Chetty Street, Madras-1". The petitioner is the proprietrix of the Dentone Chemical Works. The main contention of the petitioner in the affidavit is that what is sold in the bottles is only oil of eucalyptus under the Indian Pharmacopoeia without any alteration, that eucalyptus oil is not a patent or proprietary medicine, that no licence is necessary for its sale, that no duty is payable on it and that in such circumstances merely because a brand name is used on the cartons, it would not amount to a patent or proprietary medicine. 3.The question came up for consideration also in relation to eucalyptus oil packed, labelled and sold in containers in W.A. 23 of 1964 before Bench of this Court In that particular case as pointed out by the Bench, there was on the labels a picture of the dealer set out in an oval frame and there was also his signature. The Bench held that there could be no doubt whatever that the label includes elements which were distinctive of the dealer and which might very well be associated in the public mind with the product manufactured by him. The learned Judges observed that the label attempted a very clear connection between the eucalyptus oil packed in the bottle of dealer and his picture signature and name. In their opinion, that was a connection that was sought to be established in the Course of the trade, and that would attract Item 14E making the levy justifiable. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, there is an element of distinction, because the picture of the dealer is not found on the carton, nor her signature. But on the other hand, she has taken the trouble to give a name to the brand of eucalyptus oil sold in the carton by describing it as 'Vimtone' and has specifically indicated that it is a medicine or "Oushadam" for curing cold, headache and pains. But on the other hand, she has taken the trouble to give a name to the brand of eucalyptus oil sold in the carton by describing it as 'Vimtone' and has specifically indicated that it is a medicine or "Oushadam" for curing cold, headache and pains. It is possible to hold in the above circumstances that the packing and labelling involved a process, that was done in the course of the business, for the purpose of giving a particular identity to the product for trade purposes. The levy therefore under Item 14E has to be sustained in the present case. 4.There was an argument by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that her account-books and other papers were taken by the respondent and she had no opportunity to show cause against the actual computation of the demand. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader as against this that after the Writ Petition was filed, when a civil miscellaneous petition was filed, certain objections of the petitioner about the period of the levy were taken into account, and the computation was reduced substantially. Further, the petitioner has come to this court as soon as a show cause notice was issued to her for enforcing the demand. Therefore, it will be open to the Petitioner to make any further representations about the quantum of the levy before the assessing authority himself and get any relief to which she will be entitled.The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.