9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, Calcutta that their Indian pharmacopoeial preparations - Chalmoogre Oil I.P., Castor Oil I.P. and Camphor Oil I.P. - are not "P or P medicines" as defined in the Explanation (1) of Item 14E of the CET; and they have the right to put the Company's name "Dabur" not only in the labels and cartons but also on the containers, foils and bottles in accordance with the provisions of Rule 96(iv) of the Drugs Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 2. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta held that the three disputed products came within the mischief of Explanation 1 below Tariff Item 14E of the CET since "the containers and caps relating to these medicines bore the inscription 'Dabur', i.e. the name of the "manufacturer" and demanded duty under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of label bearing the name "Dabur" not attracting the mischief of Explanation I to tariff item 14E of the CET. However, he disputed the appropriateness or the manner in which approval had been given by the Superintendent of Central Excise when the petitioners had filed their classification list. The Superintendent, inter alia, had indicated that whereas the name "Dabur" could appear on the glass vials, it could not appear on its caps. The Counsel pleaded that this approval has no rationale basis, as the permission to apply the name on the glass vials was also implied authority for its application anywhere else on the container, including the cap, exclusion of such application of the cap is beyond the competence of the Superintendent of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules but also brings the medicines in question within the definition of proprietary medicines. The case is also distinguishable from the one cited by the petitioner's Advocate in the revision application, that of M/s Indo-French Pharmaceutical Co. v. Union of India - 1978 E.L.T. (J 478)= 1978 TLR 1856. A reading of paragraph 8 of the Madras High Court judgment indicates that the words "India French" is not a distinctive mark but a mark which is generally given to all articles manufactured by the said Company. In other words, there was no evidence in that case to show that the symbol of a flame inside which the words "India French" occurred was registered. Government also observe that a Divisional Bench of the All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this connection, the Madras High Court has observed as follows in the case of Murugan and Company, Pudukottai v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Tiruchirapally and others - 1977 E.L.T. (J 193). "In cases where a particular manufacturer goes on producing certain articles under the bona fide impression that the articles were not excisable goods and the departmental authorities also did not take any steps for bringing the goods under the excise levy as per Rule 9(1), the authorities cannot invoke Rule 9(2) on the ground that the goods have been cleared without payment of excise duty merely because they have taken a view' that the goods are excisable long after the goods had been cleared from the factory. Rule 9(2) could, in our opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
