2014 (3) TMI 595 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - SSI Exemption - Brand Name - Denial of benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1/3/2003 - Held that - Appellants have written the expression Marketed By DERMEN PHARMACEUTICALS, Promoted by UNISHARP PHARMACEUTICALS, Manufactured for DYMIX PHARMACEUTICALS (P) Ltd., Manufactured Under Technical Guidance of K.M.S. PHARMACEUTICALS and Sale in Association with ZEE PHARTMA etc. The lower authorities have held that such writing of words indicate a connection with the general public and would be covered by the definition of brand names - Following decision of DCI Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Supdt. Of C. Ex. (Div.), Panaji 1999 (3) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA wherein it was held that, Merely because the goods are distributed by some other Company/Agency and their name and logo are printed on the cartons of specified goods, it cannot be said that they are identified with the user of the brand-name in question. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty based on the denial of benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE due to the use of brand names.

Analysis:
The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit condition of duty demand and penalty amounting to Rs. 10,79,267/- each, which were confirmed based on the denial of Notification No. 8/2003-CE benefit due to the use of brand names of other manufacturers. The lower authorities held that the appellant's use of expressions like "Marketed By," "Promoted By," "Manufactured for," "Manufactured Under Technical Guidance of," and "Sale in Association with" indicated a connection with the general public and thus constituted brand names. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in DCI Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Supdt. Of C. Ex. (Div.), Panaji and distinguished it from the decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. GCM Labs. The latter decision was deemed inapplicable as it involved drugs manufactured for another pharmaceutical company under their brand name and logo, unlike the present case.

In a similar scenario, unconditional stay was granted to another appellant in the case of Alpha Drugs & Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE, Panchkula. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition of dues in the present case and unconditionally allowed the stay petition. The decision was pronounced in open court by Ms. Archana Wadhwa.