1997 (9) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rietary medicines, logo of the appellant company is also displayed after the name of the medicines as above. Thereafter, the name of the manufacturer i.e. the appellant company, is given. Thereafter, on the package, additional logo of the marketing firm's name, `ACI', within rectangular design is given. Thereafter, at the bottom of the package is the name of the marketing firm namely, M/s. Aparna Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. In the aforesaid arrangement of logos and the patent or proprietary name of the medicines, the dispute is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 would be available to the appellants herein or it would be denied, inasmuch as the packages or the bottles of the medicines as mentioned above, carry also the logo and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the logo and the name of the marketing firm, is available on the packages of the medicines, therefore, this is the trade name which creates an association with the logo, `ACI' is belonging to another person, a trader, who cannot be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. Therefore, the benefit of the said Notification cannot be allowed in respect of these medicines manufactured by the appellants. For his arguments, he relies upon the following two Judgments of the Tribunal : (i) Harts Cocoa Products (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Madras reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 714 (Tribunal); (ii) Collector of Central Excise v. Mitaso Domestic Appliances reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 842 (Tribunal). 4. We have carefully con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hese brand names namely, Apitas, Ventol and Paltrim, as pointed out by the learned Consultant, are owned by the appellants. But at this stage, learned SDR submits that this fact is not on record. Nevertheless, we are of the view that since Apitas, Ventol and Paltrim are brand names or trade names on the specified goods and which are most prominent on the packages, we should consider these brand names or trade names to be relevant for the purposes of Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86. We place reliance, for this finding of ours, on the Honourable Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) wherein a distinction between the `house .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X