2003 (6) TMI 390 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of pharmaceutical products as generic medicines or patent and proprietary medicines based on the presence of a specific logo.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, requested provisional assessment for various pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These products were provisionally assessed as generic medicines under Rule 9B, with a condition to furnish a bond for differential duty. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued for finalization of the assessment, classifying the products as patent and proprietary medicaments. The appellant challenged this classification, arguing that the products should be considered generic medicines based on their presence in pharmacopoeia and being manufactured by various companies, not just the appellant. The appellant highlighted the distinction between registered trade marks for manufacturers and product-specific trade names, emphasizing that the appearance of a company's logo does not automatically classify a product as a patent and proprietary medicine.

The appellant cited legal precedents, including the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, to support their argument that the presence of a brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is essential to classify a product as a patent and proprietary medicine. Additionally, reference was made to the case of CCE, Chennai v. Turnbull Control System (I) Ltd., where affixing a company's name as a sticker did not constitute a brand name. The appellant also presented details from the Articles of Association of the manufacturer to demonstrate the nature of the logo in question and its usage.

After reviewing the submissions and case records, the appellate authority considered whether the disputed logo, "rp Rhone Poulenc," should be classified as a brand name or merely a house mark. Relying on the presented case laws and arguments, the authority concluded that the logo did not establish a trade relationship between the mark and the medicine, thus determining that the products should be classified as generic medicines under Chapter sub-heading 3003.20. Consequently, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.