2007 (8) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Classification Revenue filed appeal against the Commissioner order through which classifiable under SH No. 3003.20 and classify the respondent s goods as P & P medicaments under SH 3003.10 and confirm the demand Tribunal rejected the revenue appeal

Summary

Issues:
Classification of medicaments manufactured by the respondents under sub-headings 3003.20 and 3003.10.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed to classify the medicaments as P and P medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10 and to confirm the duty demand. The Revenue argued that the medicaments were a mixture of two products not specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, making them patent or proprietary medicines. They cited Chapter Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the absence of 'I.P.' on the wrappers as evidence. They relied on a decision by the Calcutta High Court.

2. The respondents contended that all drugs were listed in the pharmacopoeia and the products were combinations of listed drugs, not patent or proprietary medicines. They emphasized that the drugs were manufactured following the listed pharmacopoeia and had 'I.P.' mentioned on the wrapper. They argued that the Trade and Merchandise Act and Patents Act were not applicable.

3. The Tribunal found that all drugs were separately listed in the Indian Pharmacopoeia and that the combination did not create a new substance. The Bench noted that the generic drug names on the wrapper still referred to the character of the goods within the pharmacopoeia. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's order, citing legal pronouncements on interpretation principles and circulars regarding the General Clauses Act.

4. The Commissioner's order detailed why the Trade and Merchandise Act and Patent Act were not relevant in this case. It clarified that the medicaments were not capable of being patented or assigned proprietary rights, as they were marketed under generic names without creating any brand. The Commissioner concluded that the combination drugs fell under Chapter Heading 3003.20, not 3003.10, to avoid redundancy in interpretation.

5. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decision of Albert David Ltd., emphasizing that the respondent had established the medicaments were not patent or proprietary medicines and were simple mixtures of drugs specified in the pharmacopoeia. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.