Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Both the writ petitions have been preferred by common petitioner, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. In W.P. No.3260/04, the petitioner sought for a declaration that levy of 4% ad valorem rate of duty in respect of Clause 2 (i) of preparations in the schedule appended to the Medical and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as M&TP Act), as amended by Finance Act, 2000, is null and void as affecting Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to restore pre-amended provision of Nil duty. The other writ petition, W.P. No.3261/04 has been filed for direction of the 4th respondent and his officers and subordinates from interfering with the petitioners trade in unrestricted medical preparations by applying clauses 6 (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), (10), (13), (14) and (15) of Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1984) applicable to restricted medical preparations under Rules, 1984. 2. The petitioner is manufacturer of unrestricted medical preparations of Asavas and Aristas for sale, which contains self-generated alcohols. They are prepared out of medicinal plants adding medicines and water and keeping them under fermentation for thirty days and above. Thereafter, they are filtered, bottled, sealed, labels are affixed giving name of the preparation, ingredients used, alcoholic percentage, name of the licensee/vaidiyar, name of the pharmacopea, batch number, etc. They are prepared as per formula given in the recognised Malayalam Ayurvedha Pharmacopea – Sahasrayogam. According to the petitioner, in the District of Kanyakumari, which was a part of Kerala till 1956, consumption by public of Asavas and Aristas for specific ailment as tonic has been in vogue for ages. It has not produced any harm to the human body or mind as in the case of illicit alcoholic preparations. There are more than hundred traders in the District of Kanyakumari, including hereditary vaidiyars and based on the drug licence issued, each one has built a manufacturing unit at a cost of not less than Rs.5 Lakhs equipping it as per drug rules. The alcoholic percentage in them does not exceed 10% of the alcohol as provided under Rules, 1984. The maximum percentage prescribed for alcoholic content in them under Rule 162 of the Drug Rules is 12%. The alcoholic percentage in them does not exceed 10% of the alcohol as provided under Rules, 1984. The maximum percentage prescribed for alcoholic content in them under Rule 162 of the Drug Rules is 12%. The excise officers of the District functioning under the M&TP Act and drug officials take samples of preparation frequently to get them analysed for the alcohol percentage as to whether they conform to the standards of the particular ayurveda preparation and whether they are spurious or adulterated and the said three enactments regulate the trade and action could be taken in default. There is enough control over the trade. In the past two to three years, more than 100 L-2 licences issued under the M&TP Act have been cancelled, renewal refused and application for fresh licence rejected by the District Collector of Kanyakumari as a policy. 3. It appears that the petitioner and 6 others earlier preferred writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 1294 to 1300/04 to forbear the respondents from requiring manufacturers for sale of unrestricted ayurveda preparations to take out an L-2 licence under M&TP Act and Rules framed thereunder, as it is not necessary for them, being not dutiable goods u/s 2 (c) and clause 2 (i) of the Schedule to M&TP Act, providing Nil duty for them. According to the petitioner, a conflicting decision was rendered in one writ petition; in W.P. Nos.7958 and 7959/82, by judgment dated 30th March, 1990, this Court held in para-6 that unrestricted preparations are not liable to duty, but in W.P. Nos.16133/91 and 2870/92, by judgment dated 17th April, 2000, in para-11, it was held that they are liable to duty. By an order dated 20th Oct., 2004, W.P. No. 1294/04 and the other cases were referred to a Division Bench, but in the meantime, amendment having been made providing rate of duty against clause 2 (i) from Nil duty to a levy of duty of 4%, the analogous writ petition, W.P. No.3260/00 has been preferred. This apart, other facts have been stated by the petitioner, but they are not necessary to be reproduced. 4. This apart, other facts have been stated by the petitioner, but they are not necessary to be reproduced. 4. The grounds taken to assail the amended rate of duty prescribed under clause 2 (1) of M&TP Act can be summarised as follows:- i) For more than 45 years, the respondents having not prescribed any duty for ayurvedic medical preparations containing self-generated alcohol not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, the imposition of 4% ad valorem duty for such preparation is excessive and arbitrary. ii) Under Clause 2 of Schedule, 4% ad valorem duty having earlier levied only for restricted preparations, imposition of the same duty at 4% ad valorem for unrestricted preparations will amount to treating two unequal as equal rendering it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The duty against clause 2 (1), i.e., medicinal preparation containing alcohol not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, being Nil for more than 45 years, it will be deemed to have been exempted by the State and in absence of any valid reason, imposition of such duty should be construed to have no nexus with the object to achieve. 5. Section 2 (c) defines dutiable goods, which reads as follows :- "2. Definitions. -- In this Act unless the context otherwise required, - * * * * * * * * (c) "dutiable goods" means the medicinal and toilet preparations specified in the schedule as being subject to the duties of excise levied under this Act." The aforesaid definition merely shows the goods, which are subjected to duty. Section 3 of the M&TP Act is the charging section enabling the State to levy duties of excise on dutiable goods, as quoted hereunder :- "3. Duties of excise to be levied and collected on certain goods. -- (1) There shall be levied duties of excise, at the rates specified in the schedule, on all dutiable goods manufactured in India. .(2) The duties shall be leviable -- .(a) where the dutiable goods are manufactured in bond, in the State in which such goods are released from a bonded warehouse for home consumption, whether such State is the State of manufacture or not; .(b) where the dutiable goods are not manufactured in bond, in the State in which such goods are manufactured. .(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the duties aforesaid shall be collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - Dutiable goods are said to be manufactured in bond within the meaning of this section if they are allowed to be manufactured without payment of any duty of excise leviable under any law for the time being in force in respect of alcohol, [narcotic drug or narcotic] which is to be used as an ingredient in the manufacture of such goods." Charging Section 3 is not under challenge nor the schedule described thereunder. Clause 2 of Schedule relates to medical preparation in Ayurveda, Unani or other indigenous systems of medicine and under which clause 2 (i) relates to rate of duty prescribed for medicinal preparation containing self-generated alcohol not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage. Clause 2 (i) of the Schedule is also not under challenge in the present case, except the 4% ad valorem duty of excise so imposed. The relevant amendment as made under clause 2 (i) of the Schedule reads as follows :- 2. Medicinal preparations in Ayurvedic, Unani or other indigenous systems of medicine - (i) Medicinal preparations containing self-generated alcohol which are not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages. : Four per cent. ad valorem 6. So far as taxing provisions are concerned, it is settled law that distinction has to be made by Court while interpreting provision of taxing statutes. While charging provisions are construed strictly, machinery provisions, which provide the machinery for the quantification of the taxes, are not generally subjected to rigourous construction. The Courts are expected to construe the machinery sections in such a manner that a charge to tax is not defeated (see Supreme Court decision in Associated Cement Company – Vs – Commercial Tax Officer – AIR 1981 SC 1887 ). There cannot be implied exemption in absence of a specific provision under the statute. Mere non-charging of duty will not render the State powerless to impose such duty, as it deems proper, at any appropriate stage. Merely because Nil duty was shown for medicinal preparations containing self-generated alcohol not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, will not invalidate the law, if certain percentage of ad valorem duty is levied in respect of such preparation. 7. Merely because Nil duty was shown for medicinal preparations containing self-generated alcohol not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, will not invalidate the law, if certain percentage of ad valorem duty is levied in respect of such preparation. 7. The test of constitutional validity of Act was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association – Vs – State of U.P. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 .) Therein, the Supreme Court held as follows :- "26. The constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz. (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provisions. In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. this Court has opined that except the above two grounds there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated and that the ground of invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the aforementioned two grounds." In the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the legislative power of Parliament, which enacted M&TP Act under Entry 84 List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also failed to show violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. The only challenge made is that of the rate of 4% ad valorem duty prescribed for medicinal preparation under clause 2 (i), on the ground that it is excessive. In this regard, we have noticed the ad valorem rate of duty as levied for other medical preparations containing alcohol. In respect of Allopathic medicinal preparations and for similar medicinal preparations containing alcohol, which are not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, 20% ad valorem duty has been prescribed under the same schedule of the M&TP Act. There are other medicinal preparations for which much more than 4% ad valorem rate of duty has been prescribed and, thus, 4% ad valorem duty, as prescribed vide amended clause 2 (i) of Schedule, cannot be held to be arbitrary or excessive. 8. There are other medicinal preparations for which much more than 4% ad valorem rate of duty has been prescribed and, thus, 4% ad valorem duty, as prescribed vide amended clause 2 (i) of Schedule, cannot be held to be arbitrary or excessive. 8. So far as the second case, W.P. No.3261/04 is concerned, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the provisions as laid down under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1937) and the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1984) in respect of restricted preparations and spirituous preparations cannot be made applicable to ayurveda drug manufacturers for imposing any restrictions prescribed therein. 9. Section 3 (9) of Act, 1937, defines liquor which includes toddy, arrack, spirits, wine, beer and all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol. Rule 3 (j) defines restricted preparation – means spirituous preparation that are intended for internal consumption and containing more than 18% of alcohol and medicinal preparation containing intoxicating drugs. As per proviso to Rule 3 (j), all ayurveda preparations containing self-generated alcohol and classified as restricted preparation under Medical and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1959, are to be treated as restricted preparation for the purpose of Rules, 1984. Rule 3 (k) defines spirituous preparation – means any medical or toilet preparation containing alcohol, whether self-generated or otherwise, or any intoxicating drug or any other substance containing alcohol or intoxicating drug whether self-generated or otherwise, notified under Rule 5 to be a spirituous preparation. 10. According to counsel for the petitioner, ayurveda medical preparation contains alcohol around 10% or less, which is much lesser than 18% of alcohol and, thereby, do not fall within the meaning of restricted preparation under Rule 3 (j) of rules, 1984. For the said reason, it cannot be treated to be a spirituous preparation under Rule 3 (k) to attract the restrictions imposed for other preparations. Thus, according to him, ayurveda medical preparations are "unrestricted preparations" and so prohibition under Rules 6 (3), (4); 7 (1); 8 (1); 9(1); 10 (1); 11 (1); 12 (1); 13 (1); 14 (1) and 17 (1) of Rules, 1984, cannot be imposed. 11. Though we have noticed the aforesaid submission, but the petitioner has failed to highlight any cause of action to entertain the second writ petition and for giving any declaration as sought for. 11. Though we have noticed the aforesaid submission, but the petitioner has failed to highlight any cause of action to entertain the second writ petition and for giving any declaration as sought for. There is nothing on record to suggest that on any particular day, at a particular time, district authorities or the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, or any officer empowered under Act, 1937 or Rules, 1984, visited the premises of the petitioner or any other ayurveda drug manufacturer. In these circumstances, and in absence of cause of action, this Court is not deciding the issue as raised in the second writ petition, W.P. No.3261/04. 12. We find no merit in any of the writ petition and, accordingly, they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.