2004 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of various tablets under Chapter 30 - Interpretation of Pharmacopoeial descriptions and Trade & Merchant Act, 1953 - Application of Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Tablets: The issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the proper classification of several tablets, including HYSTO TAB, Probino Tablets, Clotil Tablets, Hysto Tablets, Kemeprofen, Ibuvita 200 Tablets, and Ripezide Tablets. The lower authority had classified these tablets under heading 3003.20 based on criteria such as the prominence of generic and pharmacopoeial descriptions, absence of registration under the Trade & Merchant Act, 1953, and packaging in 1000 tablet quantities.

2. Interpretation of Legal Precedents: The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to a judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.), which distinguished between 'House Mark' and 'product work' under Drug Rules. The Commissioner upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner based on this distinction. The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of findings on whether the disputed invented words on the packages were permitted or mentioned in the Pharmacopoeial. The Tribunal emphasized that the additional words used could trigger the application of Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30, leading to a classification under 3003.10.

3. Application of Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30: The Appellate Tribunal held that Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 did not impose restrictions on the size of the type font or package size to exclude classification under 3003.10. It was concluded that there was no justification to consider the different marks as 'House Mark' of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authority were unsustainable and ordered them to be set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment focused on the proper classification of tablets under Chapter 30, emphasizing the interpretation of pharmacopoeial descriptions, legal precedents, and the application of relevant statutory notes. The decision clarified the significance of additional words on packaging and underscored the importance of aligning with established legal principles in determining the appropriate classification for pharmaceutical products.