2019 (6) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of Brand name of others or not - N/N. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 - HELD THAT - Though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter twice to the Adjudicating Authority only for verification of status of ownership of brand name however, the Adjudicating Authority in the third round of adjudication dropped the demand on the basis of the evidence of drugs authority that the brand name belongs to the appellant - Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the views of the Adjudicating Authority for the reason that there is no dispute on the fact that product bore mention that Registered trade mark Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda , accordingly held that the brand name belongs to Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda and not to the appellant. In the case of medicines, all the material description including the ownership of brand name and marking, the labels are required to be submitted to the drug authority and the same is approved by the said authority, therefore, even the mention of Registered trade mark of Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda and Marketed by Mercury Laboratory Pvt. Limited, Baroda under the statutory provisions of Food and Drugs Control Act. Therefore, the said mention on the product cannot be ignored. Therefore, once this fact is not otherwise contradicted, it is clear that the Brand Name of the medicine clearly belongs to Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda . Hence, the appellant are not eligible for exemption. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Determination of eligibility for SSI exemption based on ownership of brand name of medicaments.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the appellant to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 based on the ownership of the brand name of medicaments. The matter was remanded twice by the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the ownership status of the brand name. The Adjudicating Authority, in the third round of adjudication, concluded that the appellant owned the brand name based on drug authority approvals. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision upon observing inscriptions on the product indicating ownership by another entity, "Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda." Consequently, the appellant's eligibility for SSI exemption was challenged, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Adjudicating Authority's decision, based on drug authority evidence, should be final as no contrary evidence was presented. Citing the case of Nirlex Spares Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, the appellant emphasized the importance of the evidence considered by the Adjudicating Authority. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of SSI exemption to the appellant based on brand name ownership.

Upon careful consideration of both parties' submissions and the records, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had dropped the demand based on drug authority evidence indicating the appellant's ownership of the brand name. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, pointing out inscriptions on the product linking the brand name to "Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda." The Tribunal highlighted the statutory requirements under the Food and Drugs Control Act, emphasizing that all material descriptions, including brand name ownership and markings, are approved by the drug authority. Given the unchallenged inscriptions on the product, the Tribunal concluded that the brand name belonged to "Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Limited, Baroda," rendering the appellant ineligible for SSI exemption.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concurred with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, settling the dispute regarding the appellant's eligibility for SSI exemption based on brand name ownership of medicaments.