1999 (3) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of medicines as patent or proprietary under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and duty demandable for an extended period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Medicines
The appeal questioned whether the medicines manufactured by M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. should be classified as patent or proprietary medicines under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Collector Central Excise imposed duty and a penalty based on the alleged suppression of information regarding the design and label of the products. The appellant argued that they had fully disclosed details in the classification lists approved by the Department, citing precedents to support that approved lists eliminate the possibility of fact suppression. The appellant also contended that incorrect classification should be addressed through show cause notices for future clearances. The appellant further highlighted that the percentage strength on labels was a pharmacopoeia requirement, and the agreements' clauses did not confer proprietary status on the medicines.

Issue 2: Duty Demand for Extended Period
The demand for central excise duty for the period from April 1990 to November 1992 was contested by the appellant on the grounds of time limitations specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the demand beyond six months was time-barred, referencing cases where demands beyond the statutory period were deemed invalid. The Tribunal's decision in Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd. v. CCE and ICPA Health Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE supported the appellant's stance that demands beyond the time limit were not permissible. Additionally, the medicines in question were deemed not to qualify as patent or proprietary medicaments based on pharmacopoeia names and labeling requirements. The Supreme Court's ruling in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. CCE was cited to emphasize the distinction between product identification and proprietary status, further supporting the appellant's position.

Conclusion
The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, ruling in favor of M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. The demand for duty beyond the statutory period was deemed invalid, and the medicines were not classified as patent or proprietary based on the provided evidence and legal interpretations. The clauses in the agreement did not establish proprietary status for the medicines, leading to the appeal's success and the reversal of the imposed duty and penalty.