9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing under Chapter Heading No.3003 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Refund claim of Rs. 1,46,603/- was filed by the appellant on 8th July, 2014 on the ground that they being a new unit, escaped attention to the Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17th March, 2012 extending complete exemption for the medicaments biochemic system not bearing a brand-name. The said claim was rejected by the Department on the ground that the appellants are registered since November, 2013 under Central Excise Registration. In view of Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1st March, 2011, they are also availing Central Excise Duty at the rate of 2% on the biochemic medicaments on the MRP thereof after permissible abatement as per Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hargava Phytolab only. The said condition is sufficient to qualify any sign, symbol, word etc. to be called as brand-name. Under Notification No. 12/2012, any product if sold with a brand-name is entitled for 100% exemption, the decision under challenge has therefore, no error or illegality. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both the parties we are of the considered opinion that the moot question to be adjudicated is as to whether a lighted lamp shown on the bio-medicament of the appellants with Bhargava Phytolab mentioned there along, amounts to a brand-name or not and as such, as to whether the appellant shall be entitled to absolute exemption under Notification No. 12/2012. For the purpose, the definition of brand-name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the medicine. In the present case the product is a homeopathic medicine, which is sold under its generic name but with the name of the appellant on the label thereof to be indicated as the manufacture of said homeopathic medicine. 8. Though the appellant has relied upon Brown & Burk Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (supra) cases, but to our opinion the facts and circumstances of the present case distinguishes it from both those cases. In addition, in those cases the manufacturer was having a house mark for his entire company. However, for some of its products, he was using a separate brand-name. It is not the fact for the present case. 9. It is an apparent and admitted fact herein that appellant is manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
