Brand name evidence and medicament classification under Chapter 30 sustained, with Modvat credit denial upheld.

A manufacturer's house mark, by itself, was treated as insufficient to establish a brand name or trade name under Note 5 to Chapter 30. The appellant failed to produce the label or other material showing that the exported goods bore a mark supporting classification as patent and proprietary medicaments under Heading 3003.10. On that evidentiary basis, the challenge to the classification was found untenable, and the resulting denial of Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacture was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods exported by the appellant were correctly treated as patent and proprietary medicaments falling under Heading 3003.10, and whether denial of Modvat credit on the inputs used in their manufacture was justified.

Analysis: The appellate authority's order was found to be reasoned and not non-speaking. It had relied on the principle that a manufacturer's house mark does not by itself constitute a brand name or trade name for the purposes of Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant did not produce the label or other material to establish that the goods bore a trade mark or brand name supporting classification in Heading 3003.10. In the absence of such proof, the challenge to the classification and the consequential credit denial was held to be untenable.

Conclusion: The classification adopted below was upheld and the denial of Modvat credit was sustained against the assessee.

---