2004 (3) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of medicaments Norfloxacin 100 mg. and Piroxicam Gel under sub-heading 3003.20 or 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The main issue in the appeals filed by the Revenue was the classification of the medicaments Norfloxacin 100 mg. and Piroxicam Gel manufactured by Endolabs Ltd. The Revenue argued that these medicaments should be classified under sub-heading 3003.10 as patent or proprietary medicaments, as they are not specified in Note 2(ii) to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue contended that the products did not match the descriptions in the Indian Pharmacopoeia 1996, with Norfloxacin tablets usually being in strengths of 200 mg., 400 mg., and 800 mg., while the Respondent's tablets were of 100 mg. strength. Similarly, the Revenue argued that Piroxicam Gel was not specifically mentioned in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, which only referred to Piroxicam capsules.

The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that their products were manufactured from single drugs and marketed under the same name. They highlighted that the inputs used were specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmacopoeia. The Respondents clarified that the addition of "Gel" after Piroxicam and "100 DT" after Norfloxacin did not change the essential nature of the products. They also emphasized that their products did not bear any trademarks under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, indicating a connection in the course of trade.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of patent and proprietary medicament under Note 2(ii) to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal noted that the mere variations in strength or form, such as Norfloxacin 100 mg. tablets and Piroxicam Gel, did not automatically classify the medicaments as proprietary. The Tribunal observed that the names of the medicaments were specified in the Pharmacopoeia, and the variations did not exclude them from being considered generic medicines. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the medicaments were not to be classified as patent or proprietary, and upheld the original classification under sub-heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.