1991 (8) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Cisplatin Injection under Tariff Item 14E vs. Tariff Item 68 and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order classifying Cisplatin Injection under Tariff Item 14E by the Collector of Central Excise, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants claimed classification under Tariff Item 68 with exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE.

2. The learned Consultant for the appellants argued that the product was mentioned in Martindale's Extra Pharmacopoeia and the United States Pharmacopoeia 1990, which should be considered. The Departmental Representative contended that the goods did not meet the criteria under Explanation-1 to Item 14E CET and referred to relevant notifications and provisions.

3. The Tribunal analyzed whether Cisplatin Injection should be classified under Tariff Item 14E as a patent or proprietary medicine or under Tariff Item 68, considering the requirements of the relevant notifications and explanations. The Explanation-1 to Item 14E and the provisions of Notification No. 234/82-CE were crucial in determining the classification and eligibility for exemption.

4. The Tribunal noted that to be classified as a patent or proprietary medicine under Item 14E, the product should bear a name not specified in a monograph in pharmacopoeia, and should have a brand name or trademark indicating a connection with the manufacturer. The absence of a proprietary interest was highlighted, citing relevant case laws and decisions.

5. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and rulings to assess the applicability of subsequent editions of pharmacopoeias and formularies in determining classification and eligibility for exemption. It considered the evidence presented and concluded that Cisplatin Injection did not qualify as a patent or proprietary medicine, but should be classified under Tariff Item 68 and be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE.

6. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, overturning the classification under Tariff Item 14E and granting the appellants the classification under Tariff Item 68 with exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE based on the product's inclusion in the United States Pharmacopoeia 1990 and its pharmacopoeial standard for cancer treatment.