Judgment 1. THIS is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent and is directed against the judgment and order dated March 19, 1965 passed by D. Basu, J. in C. R. 50 (W) of 1963. By the said judgment and order the learned Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the present respondent and quashed a notice dated November 22, 1962 issued by the superintendent of Excise, 24-Parganas and the appellate order there from dated January 15, 1963 passed by the commissioner of Excise, West Bengal. 2. THE short point that falls for determination in this appeal is as to under which of the clauses of Entry No. 3 of the schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise duties) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) would fall the medicinal preparation manufactured by the respondent in the brand name of 'maharasharsta (hereinafter referred to as the disputed product. The respondent before us runs a manufactory near Calcutta known as 'sadhana Ousadhalay' for manufacturing various Ayurvedic medicines. It is not in dispute that in this manufactory he manufactures the disputed product out of basic Ayurvedic ingredients on a traditional formula initially evolved long ago which, it is claimed by him, had devolved from generation to generation on 'guru parampara' basis. Upon the respondent's own admission such a preparation is not manufactured in accordance with the recipe or directions of any recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and the product so manufactured is not noticed in any such pharmacopoeia. Nonetheless the disputed product is an "arista" group of ayurvedic preparation. Though "arista" is recognised by the usually recognised ayurvedic pharmacopoeia, the disputed product is manufactured by the respondent en a traditional formula of his own and not on any formula laid down by those usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. 3. THE disputed product admittedly has an alcoholic content though the alcohol is self-generated and is not separately distilled or added in the process of manufacture. It was not subjected to any excise duty under the Bengal excise Act of 1909. According to the respondent, it was not so done as it was always considered to be an ayurvedic preparation - a reason so suggested by the respondent has, however, been strongly disputed by the excise authorities. 4. IN 1955 Parliament passed the said Act for the levy and collection of excise duty on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. According to the respondent, it was not so done as it was always considered to be an ayurvedic preparation - a reason so suggested by the respondent has, however, been strongly disputed by the excise authorities. 4. IN 1955 Parliament passed the said Act for the levy and collection of excise duty on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. Under Section 3 all medicinal and toilet preparations specified in the schedule have been made subject to such duties of excise as are specified in the said schedule. For purposes of the present appeal we are required to consider only Entry No. 3 of the said schedule which is set out hereunder. Item No. Description of dutiable goods. Rate of duty 3. Medicinal preparations, not otherwise specified containing alcohol- (i Ayurvedic preparations containing self-generated alcohol which are not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages. Nil. (ii) Ayurvedic preparations, containing self-generated alcohol, which are capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages. Thirty-eight naye paise per litre. (iii) All others. . . . . . . . Rupee one and ten naye paise per litre of the strength of London Proof spirit. It is not in dispute that the above Entry stands for Entry No. 2 in the original schedule and was brought in by the 1961 amendment of the Act but in contents there is no material difference except as to rate of duty not material for the issue under consideration between the old Entry No. 2 and the present amended Entry No. 3. 5. ON November 22, 1962 the Superintendent of Excise, 24-Parganas, serverd a notice on the respondent proposing to levy excise duty on the disputed products manufactured at the respondent's manufactory at a rate which admittedly comes within the sanction of Entry No. 3 (iii) of the schedule as aforesaid. Or in other words, the Superintendent of Excise considered the disputed product to be a medicinal preparation containing alcohol belonging to the category of "all others" i.e. the category other than those contemplated by clause (i) and clause (ii. The respondent contested such a claim of the Superintendent of Excise. According to the respondent the disputed product being an Ayurvedic preparation containing self-generated alcohol and the same no being capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage would come within Entry No. 3) (i) the duty payable for which is nil. The respondent contested such a claim of the Superintendent of Excise. According to the respondent the disputed product being an Ayurvedic preparation containing self-generated alcohol and the same no being capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage would come within Entry No. 3) (i) the duty payable for which is nil. Or in other words, the respondent pleaded that the disputed product would answer the description of the preparation specified in clause (i) of Entry No. 3 and as such would not fall within clause (iii. Such a claim on the part of the respondent not having been accepted by the Superintendent of Excise, the respondent preferred an appeal under Rule 127 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal, however, refused to accept the respondent's plea and the appeal was dismissed. In so doing, the Apellate Tribunal observed- "in the absence of any specific classification of this medicinal preparation as an Ayurvedic preparation by the Government of India in a notification, as mentioned above and in the absence of the preparation being noticed in any Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia in vogue in this State, "mahadraksharista" of the petitioner's manufacture can simply be considered only as a medicinal preparation which contains alcohol" and not an Ayurvedic preparation. 6. BEING aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent moved this Court with the petition on which the above rule was issued. He challenged the orders of the Superintendent and that of the Appellate Tribunal as aforesaid and further disputed his liability to pay any excise duty on the disputed product. His case before this Court in the writ petition was based on the same plea as he had taken before the excise authorities, viz. that the disputed product fully answered the preparation referred to in Entry No. 3 (i) which is subjected to 'nil' duty under the provisions of the statute so that he is no liable to any duty whatsoever for the disputed product. As indicated here in before, this writ petition succeeded before the learned Judge in the trial court. The learned Judge found that the disputed product was being manufactured by the respondent out of basic Ayurvedic ingredients though on a traditional formula of his own and not noticed by the usually recognised ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. As indicated here in before, this writ petition succeeded before the learned Judge in the trial court. The learned Judge found that the disputed product was being manufactured by the respondent out of basic Ayurvedic ingredients though on a traditional formula of his own and not noticed by the usually recognised ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia. Such a product, according to the learned Judge, was of the character of 'arista' recognised as an Ayurvedic preparation in rule 64 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The learned Judge further held that the fact that it had not been manufactured in accordance with any recognised recipe or direction of any usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia would not derogate from the position that the product is an ayurvedic preparation when the term "ayurvedic preparation" has not been defined in the Act or the Rules. According to the learned Judge Rule 65 of the rules when it speaks of "ayurvedic pharmacopoeia in vogue in a State" does not exclude the traditional methods followed by manufacturers like the respondent. Furthermore, according to the learned Judge, Rule 65 does not control Rule 64 and, therefore, when the respondent's manufacture answers the description of 'arista' it would be an ayurvedic preparation. The learned judge also found that the Appellate tribunal was in obvious error in arriving at its decision that the disputed preparation would not be an ayurvedic preparation and that it would come within clause (iii) of Entry 3 of the schedule to the Act. Accordingly the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the disputed product would come within clause (i) of Entry No. 3 of the said schedule and as such would not be liable to any duty whatsoever, accordingly, the impugned notice and the order were set aside. Being aggrieved by this decision of the learned Judge in the trial court, the Commissioner of Excise has not come up with this appeal. In this appeal the appellant contends that the disputed product not being noticed by the usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and not having been manufactured in accordance with the recipe or directions incorporated in such pharmacopoeia cannot be considered to be as Ayurvedic preparation. In this appeal the appellant contends that the disputed product not being noticed by the usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and not having been manufactured in accordance with the recipe or directions incorporated in such pharmacopoeia cannot be considered to be as Ayurvedic preparation. It is therefore, claimed that the disputed preparation would fall within clause (iii) of Entry 3 of the schedule to the said Act and the learned Judge in the trial court was wrong in overruling such a view taken by the excise authorities. 7. MR. Das, appearing in support of this appeal, has contended that the disputed product, for reasons contended for by the appellant, cannot be considered to be an Ayurvedic preparation within the meaning of clause (i)of Entry 3 of the schedule to the said act. 8. IT is not in dispute that the disputed product fulfills all other requirements of clause (i) of Entry 3 of the said schedule so that once it is held to be an Ayurvedic preparation the said product would squarely fall within clause (i) of Entry No. 3 and not within clause (iii) of the said Entry. It is not in dispute that the disputed product is a preparation whose alcoholic content is self-generated. It is also not in dispute that such a product is not a notified preparation as capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, under Rule 60 of the rules framed under the Act, the only controversy, therefore, is as to whether it can be said to be an ayurvedic preparation. On this point again Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant, in his fairness has not disputed the fact that the disputed product is being manufactured out of basic ayurvedic ingredients though the same may not have been noticed in the usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and though it may not have been manufactured in accordance with any recipe and direction laid down by any such pharmacopoeia. The formula for its preparation is a traditional one and is not to be found in any of the recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. "ayurvedic preparation" has not been defined in the Act or the rules. The statute, it appears to us, has expressly left the terms undefined. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the term should be given such a meaning as is prevalent in ordinary parlance. "ayurvedic preparation" has not been defined in the Act or the rules. The statute, it appears to us, has expressly left the terms undefined. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the term should be given such a meaning as is prevalent in ordinary parlance. A preparation manufactured out of basic Ayurvedic process and marketed as an Ayurvedic medicine would, in our opinion, be an ayurvedic preparation within the meaning of clause (1) of Entry 3 of the above schedule as indisputably such preparations are commonly and university treated as Ayurvedic medicines. Neither the statute nor the rules framed there under imposes any limitation in the matter of construing the above term so that we can accept the contention of the appellant that in order to be 'ayurvedic preparation' the preparation must further be one manufactured in a formula or in accordance with the recipe and direction laid down by one of the recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. To accept the contention of Mr. Das in this respect would require reading into the Entry a limitation which would not be in consonance with either the language used or the context. Moreover, it would be tantamount to incorporating, so to say, a definition clause in respect of 'ayurvedic preparation' in spite of the fact that the statute bad expressly left it undefined. This being the position. we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das that any preparation in order to be an Ayurvedic preparation must be noticed as such by an usually recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and must also be prepared in accordance with any recipe and direction laid down by such a pharmacopoeia. In our opinion, the disputed product being manufactured out of basic Ayurvedic ingredients in a traditional Ayurvedic process would also be an ayurvedic preparation as it is commonly treated in the ordinary market. Reliance is placed by Mr. Das on Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The said Rules are set out hereunder. AYURVEDIC PREPARATIONS "64. Types of preparations- Asavas and Aristas are the principal types of Ayurvedic preparations in which alcoholic content is self-generated and not added as such. 65. Reliance is placed by Mr. Das on Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The said Rules are set out hereunder. AYURVEDIC PREPARATIONS "64. Types of preparations- Asavas and Aristas are the principal types of Ayurvedic preparations in which alcoholic content is self-generated and not added as such. 65. Pharmacopoeia for Ayurvedic preparations - Until a standard ayurvedic pharmacopoeia has been evolved by the Central government, pharmacopoeias that are in vogue in the various States shall be recognised as standard ayurvedic pharmacopoeias "these Rules, however, do not advance the cause of the appellant in any manner. Unlike the Bengal Rules framed under section 86 of the Bengal Excise Act these Rules nowhere make it mandatory that the Ayurvedic preparations must be manufactured in accordance with the recipe or directions laid down in Arkoprokash, Ayurvedic Sangraha or vaisaja-Ratnabali. On the other hand, rule 64 only states that 'asavas' and 'aristas' are the principal types of ayurvedic preparations in which alcoholic content is self-generated. Reference to arista in this Rule is of a general character and not to an Arista prepared in accordance with the recipe or directions laid down in any recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. This Rule so far as it recognises products of the nature of 'arista' as an Ayurvedic preparation well supports the view taken by the learned Judge of the trial court that the disputed preparation being an arista" group of medicinal products manufactured in Ayurvedic process is an ayurvedic preparation and it does not cease to be so only because it is manufactured on traditional formula and not in accordance with the recipe or direction of any recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. 9. RULE 65 does not alter the position. This Rule more or less lays down that until a standard Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia has been evolved by the central Government, pharmacopoeias that are in vogue in various States shall lie recognised as standard Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. In this Rule again what Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias are in vogue have been left unspecified and hence uncertain. 9. RULE 65 does not alter the position. This Rule more or less lays down that until a standard Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia has been evolved by the central Government, pharmacopoeias that are in vogue in various States shall lie recognised as standard Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. In this Rule again what Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias are in vogue have been left unspecified and hence uncertain. In any event, this rule does not lay down that a preparation in order to be an Ayurvedic preparation must also be manufactured in accordance with the recipe and direction of such an Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and would not cover a product made of basic Ayurvedic ingredients on a traditional formula of the manufacturer on the conclusions as above we cannot accept the only contention put forward by Mr. Das in support of this appeal. 10. BEFORE we conclude we must express our concurrence with the learned judge in the trial court that the Appellate tribunal in rejecting the respondent's claim was proceeding on an obvious misconception. We have quoted the relevant part of the Tribunal's findings here in before. It appears to us that the tribunal was proceeding on two erroneous assumptions viz. (1) that the preparation must be classified as an ayurvedic preparation by the Central government in a Notification and (2)that it must be noticed in one of the recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia in vogue before the preparation can be taken to be an "ayurvedic preparation". Neither the Act nor the Rules provide for any classification by the central Government for any such purpose as suggested by the Appellate Tribunal. What misled the Tribunal is perhaps Rule 60 of the Rules framed under the Act which empowers the Central Government to prepare and notify a list of medicinal preparations which are considered to be capable of being used as ordinary alcoholic beverage. Such a classification has its relevance for the purpose of adjudicating as to whether the preparation would fall within clause (i) or clause (ii) of Entry 3 or Entries 1 or 2 of the schedule. The Rule now here contemplates any classification by the Central Government of products for treating them as Ayurvedic preparations as erroneously assumed by the appellate Tribunal. The Rule now here contemplates any classification by the Central Government of products for treating them as Ayurvedic preparations as erroneously assumed by the appellate Tribunal. So far as the second assumption is concerned, for reasons already given by us, it must be held that the Tribunal was misconstruing the relevant Entry in thinking that in order to be an Ayurvedic preparation the preparation, must be one manufactured in accordance with the recipe or direction laid down in any of the recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeias. For reason aforesaid this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.