2018 (8) TMI 734 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March, 2012 - exemption claimed on the ground that they being a new unit, escaped attention to the N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March, 2012 extending complete exemption for the medicaments biochemic system not bearing a brand-name - exemption denied by the Department on the ground that the appellants are registered since November, 2013 under Central Excise Registration. Whether a lighted lamp shown on the bio-medicament of the appellants with Bhargava Phytolab mentioned there along, amounts to a brand-name or not and as such, as to whether the appellant shall be entitled to absolute exemption under N/N. 12/2012? Held that - It becomes clear that anything when used in relation to a product for the purpose of indicating a connection between the product and the person using such name, irrespective it is registered or not and irrespective of any indication or not of the identity of that person, the same shall be the brand-name. The purpose appears to be that if the manufacturer manufactures medicines, which carries its own name then such manufacturer is liable to pay duty. It is an apparent and admitted fact herein that appellant is manufacturing the homeopathic medicines. The said medicines are sold only under the generic names. No manufacturer of homeopathic medicines is selling any generic Homeopathic medicine with any brand-name. These are the generic names endorsed with the name of the company which helps the buyer to establish connection between the medicine and its manufacturer - Bhargava Phytolab alongwith sign of lighted lamp marked on the product of the appellant amounts to the product having a brand-name. Appellant is not entitled to N/N. 12/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim based on Notification No.12/2012-CE for biochemic medicine falling under Chapter Heading No.3003; Interpretation of brand-name under Notification No. 12/2012 for exemption eligibility.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the Department concerning the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE for biochemic medicines manufactured by the appellant. The Department rejected the claim citing the registration of the appellants under Central Excise since November 2013 and their availing of Central Excise Duty at a specific rate for their products, which were branded under the name of Bhargava Phytolab with a sign of a lighted lamp. The original adjudicating authority upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant contended that the products were wrongly considered branded, arguing that the house-mark Bhargava Phytolab with a sign of a lighted lamp was distinct from a brand-name. They relied on precedents to support their claim for complete exemption under Notification No. 12/2012. Conversely, the Department argued that the presence of the lighted lamp was sufficient to identify the product as manufactured by Bhargava Phytolab, qualifying it as a brand-name eligible for exemption under the notification.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the lighted lamp and Bhargava Phytolab on the bio-medicament constituted a brand-name as per the definition in Notification No. 12/2012. The explanation in the notification clarified that a brand-name indicates a connection between the product and the manufacturer, regardless of registration or identity indication. The Tribunal emphasized that the marks on the medicine should signify a special preparation by a specific manufacturer to establish a proprietary interest in the product.

While the appellant cited relevant cases, the Tribunal distinguished the present case based on the unique circumstances. It noted that the appellant sold homeopathic medicines only under generic names endorsed with the company name, unlike the cases referenced. This distinction, along with the presence of Bhargava Phytolab and the lighted lamp, led the Tribunal to conclude that the product indeed had a brand-name, making the appellant ineligible for complete exemption under Notification No. 12/2012.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the presence of Bhargava Phytolab along with the lighted lamp constituted a brand-name, thereby denying the appellant complete exemption under the notification. The decision was based on the interpretation of the brand-name definition and the specific circumstances of the case, highlighting the connection between the manufacturer and the product as a determining factor for exemption eligibility.