1998 (6) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds classification of Albendazole Suspension under Tariff 3003.20

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Versus WOCKHARDT LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Versus WOCKHARDT LTD. - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 240 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of Albendazole Suspension under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as Patent or Proprietary medicine or under Tariff sub-heading 3003.20 as other than P or P medicines.Analysis:The main issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was the classification of Albendazole Suspension. The Revenue contended that the product should be classified as a Patent or Proprietary medicine under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10, while the respondents argued that it should be classified under Tariff sub-heading 3003.20 as other than P or P medicines. The Revenue's case was based on the presence of a cattle head printed on the label of the medicine, which they argued indicated a connection between the medicine and the respondents.The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondents, classifying the product under Tariff heading 3003.20. The authority found that the show cause notice did not confirm the grounds mentioned by the Revenue, and the issue of the 'cattle head' was not included in the notice. Therefore, the authority decided against the Revenue, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.The appellant Collector raised a single ground for appeal, emphasizing that the lower appellate authority failed to examine the significance of the cattle head on the label, which could have influenced the classification of the product as a Patent or Proprietary medicament under Tariff heading 3003.10. The Collector argued that proper examination of this aspect was necessary and requested a remand of the matter to the lower appellate authority.Upon careful consideration of the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority did take into account the submission that the cattle head on the label was a legal requirement under the Drugs Act due to the medicine's intended use for animals. The Tribunal noted that the Collector's argument for a different classification based on the cattle head was only speculative and not definitive. Since the respondents' submission regarding the cattle head was not effectively rebutted by the Collector, the Tribunal could not grant the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Collector's arguments.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the presence of the cattle head on the label was a legal necessity under the Drugs Act and did not warrant a different classification of the product. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, highlighting the lack of substantive rebuttal to the respondents' argument and the speculative nature of the Collector's plea for a different classification based on the cattle head.