2005 (2) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of surgical adhesive tapes under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Branding and classification of goods manufactured by different entities.
3. Liability for duty payment based on the manufacturer.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the classification of surgical adhesive tapes under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants argued that the tapes were not branded products but had 'CM' logo as a house mark, complying with Drug Rules. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the compulsory nature of brand names under Drug Rules and concluded that the 'CM' logo did not constitute a brand name. Therefore, the demand for duty under Sub-Heading No. 3004.90 was set aside, and the tapes were classified under Sub-Heading No. 3004.10.

2. Another issue addressed was the branding and classification of goods manufactured by different entities. The Revenue contended that the surgical adhesive tapes were branded under 'CM,' making them classifiable under Sub-Heading 3004.90. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were cleared under the name of Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. by M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Since the goods were manufactured by Chetna Polytex, the demand for duty from Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled that the demand should be made from the actual manufacturer, M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd.

3. Lastly, the issue of liability for duty payment based on the manufacturer was discussed. It was established that if the goods were manufactured by M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd., then the duty demand should be directed towards them and not towards Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand against Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of surgical adhesive tapes, the importance of brand names under Drug Rules, and the liability for duty payment based on the actual manufacturer of the goods.