1998 (1) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30

Issue 1: Classification of pharmaceutical products under sub-heading 3003.10
The appellants, licensed manufacturers of P & P medicines, filed classification lists for three products. The Assistant Collector classified the products under sub-heading 3003.10 as P & P medicines, attracting Excise duty. The lower appellate authority upheld this classification. The appellants argued that the markings on the cartons were for internal use only and did not establish a connection in the course of trade. The Tribunal examined the markings and referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the use of marks on products. The Tribunal concluded that the products should be classified under Heading 3003.20, setting aside the previous order and allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of markings on pharmaceutical products
The Vice President of the Tribunal reviewed the case and the markings on the products. He referenced the Supreme Court judgment that distinguished between a 'house mark' and a 'product mark.' The Supreme Court's emphasis was on the relationship established by the mark between the medicine and the manufacturer. The Vice President analyzed the Collector's observations regarding the purposeful design of the markings and the connection in the course of trade. He noted that Chapter Note 2(ii) does not require the identification of the manufacturer explicitly. However, he found that the Department failed to prove that the markings indicated a connection in the course of trade. The Vice President concluded that the items were allopathic medicines classifiable under Chapter 30.03, and the appellants' classification was correct. The appeal was allowed based on this analysis.

Conclusion
The Tribunal's judgment addressed the classification of pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30, specifically focusing on the interpretation of markings on the products to establish a connection in the course of trade. The decision emphasized the need for evidence to support such connections and referred to relevant legal precedents to determine the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff.