Classification of Prednisolone Tablets as Medicament Upheld by Tribunal, Overturning Initial Patent Classification

The Tribunal concluded that prednisolone tablets of 10 mg and 20 mg strength should be classified under heading 3003.20 as a medicament, overturning the initial classification under sub-heading 10 of heading 30.03 as a patent or proprietary medicament. The Tribunal found that the presence of the manufacturer's name alone on the tablets was insufficient to establish a relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer, ultimately allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order without addressing the extended period invoked in the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: Classification of prednisolone tablets under the Tariff

The primary issue in this case was the classification of prednisolone tablets of 10 mg and 20 mg strength under the Tariff. The appellant claimed their classification under heading 3003.20 as a medicament, while the notice proposed a different classification under sub-heading 10 of heading 30.03 as a patent or proprietary medicament, demanding duty and penalty.

Analysis:

The Commissioner confirmed the classification under sub-heading 10, primarily focusing on the name "Wyeth" on the tablets as indicative of a patent or proprietary medicament. However, the Commissioner did not consider other reasons proposed for the change in classification, such as the brand name "Wysolone" and the manufacturer's trade mark on the adhesive strips.

The appellant argued that "Wyeth" was a house mark of the manufacturer, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Commissioner distinguished this judgment, stating that the use of "house mark" was different in this case as the manufacturer projected the tablets as generic medicine for marketing but declared them as patent or proprietary medicaments for duty exemption.

The Supreme Court's distinction between house mark and product mark was discussed, emphasizing that the name alone is not sufficient to establish the relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer. The Commissioner's attempt to distinguish the Supreme Court judgment was not validated.

The joint chief departmental representative relied on the Supreme Court's statement regarding establishing a relationship between the name and the medicine. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the mere presence of the manufacturer's name on the product is inadequate to establish this relationship.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the tablets were not patent or proprietary medicaments and overturned the classification under sub-heading 20 of heading 30.03. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal did not delve into the extended period invoked in the show cause notice due to this finding.

---