2005 (8) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Dispute regarding brand name and classification under Heading 3003.20 or 3003.10 - Benefit of Modvat credit availed by the respondents - Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The main issue in the appeal was the correct classification of the medicaments manufactured by the respondents. The Revenue proposed classifying the goods under Chapter 3003.20, attracting a nil rate of duty and denying the Modvat credit benefit. The original adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue's stance, leading to a demand for duty and a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, prompting the Revenue's present appeal.

2. Brand Name Dispute:
The crux of the disagreement was whether the words "Core IV" or "Core Tabs" on the product packaging constituted brand names. The Revenue argued that these were not brand names but mere house marks indicating the manufacturer's identity. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 3003.20, contrary to the respondents' claim of classification under Heading 3003.10.

3. Judicial Interpretation:
The Commissioner (Appeals) differed, holding that the disputed words like "Core IV" and "Core Tabs" were indeed brand names, establishing a relationship between the mark and the medicine. This finding led to the classification of the products under CSH 3003.10, allowing the respondents to export under bond without duty payment. The Commissioner rejected the Revenue's argument that the products were marketed under pharmacopoeial names domestically.

4. House Mark vs. Brand Name:
The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between a house mark and a brand name. It noted that the words "Core IV" and "Core Tabs" were akin to house marks, connecting the manufacturer to the medicine. Rulings in previous cases highlighted that products sold under pharmacopoeial names, with additional manufacturer-related markings, did not qualify as patent or proprietary medicines.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the expressions "Core IV" and "Core Tabs" were house marks, and the medicines were marketed under pharmacopoeial names. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to classify the goods as P&P medicines, allowing Modvat credit, was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal sided with the Revenue, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstating the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the classification and brand name disputes, judicial interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai in the cited legal judgment.