9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing product : (1) Erythromycin Estilate Oral Suspension 60ml. U.S.P. (2) Erythromycin Estolate Tablets 250 Mg. IP. (3) Dexamethasane Tab. 0.5 mg. I.P. (4) Paracetamol 500 mg. Tab. IP. (5) Ibuprofen Tab. 200 mg. I.P. (6) Ibuprofen Tab. 400 mg. I.P. (7) Ciprofloacxin Hydrochloride Tab. 250 mg. I.P. (8) Ciprofloacxin Hydrochloride 500 Mg. I.P. (9) Chloramphenicol Cap. 250 mg. I.P. (10) Chloramphenicol Cap. 500 mg. I.P. 3. The product mentioned above were provisionally assessed under Chapter 3003.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as generic medicine as per Rule 9B of Central Excise Act, 1944 vide letter Vapi-I/Rule 9B/Asst./S. Kant/99, dated 11-3-1999. The condition laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd., and therefore appearing on each and every product irrespective of the pharmaceutical products having their brand or generic name. RPIL has registered their house mark with Trade Mark Registry under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is pertinent to note that both the product name/brand name and logo/house marks are registrable under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. There is no any other or separate authority for registration of house mark/logo and brand/product name. In the instant case, the pharmaceutical products that were classified by the Appellant on behalf of RPIL were specified in pharmacopoeia and the department has not disputed this in their show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hes the relation between the manufacture and the product. Therefore, raising an objection on the basis of rp Rhone Poulenc which nothing but the house mark/corporate logo/trading style of RPIL is certainly defeating the purpose of generic medicine. (e) To attract the provision of the explanation 2(ii) of Chapter 30, what is required is medicine should carry brand name which is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and further it should be shown that Assessee firm describe the medicine by any symbol or monograph on label so as to establish the relationship between the manufacturer and medicine in question, then only the item in question could be included in the Explanation 2(ii) appended to explanatory note of Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) In view of the aforesaid submission, the Appellant strongly feel that there is no contravention of any of the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder as well as there is no mis-statement or misdeclaration on our part in complying central excise formalities. (j) The Appellant crave your leave to add, to alter, to amend any of the submissions made hereinabove or in full. 6. A personal hearing was fixed on 13-5-2003 but the appellant did not appear, hence personal hearing was refixed on 10-6-2003. Shri Sudhir J. Ghatge, Advocate and Shri Kalyan Mitra, Consultant, appeared for the personal hearing on behalf of the appellant on 10-6-2003 and reiterated the submissions made in the memorandum of appeal and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured for M/s. Rhone Poulenc, whether the pharmaceutical product bears a brand name or a generic name. Therefore, the said logo is a house mark/ trade mark/corporate logo of M/s. Rhone Poulenc. Therefore, the said logo cannot be considered as a brand name. 9. The main issue involved in this case whether the said logo is a brand name/trade name indicating relationship in the course of trade between the mark and medicine or it is merely a house mark. I have seen above case laws in this regard. In my view the matter is covered by the judgments cited above and the logo rp Rhone Poulenc put by the appellant cannot be treated as brand name or trade name. Therefore, in my view, the disputed products are classifiable under Chapter sub-headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
