TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal classifies Gentamycin Injection I.P. under Central Excise Tariff, emphasizes brand distinction</h1> <h3>MILMET OFTHO INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BARODA</h3> MILMET OFTHO INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BARODA - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 957 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of Veterinary Medicine Gentamycin Injection I.P. under Central Excise TariffClassification of Goods:The appeal pertains to the classification of Veterinary Medicine Gentamycin Injection I.P. under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3003.20 and claimed assessment at nil rate of duty, while the Revenue classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3003.10 as patent or proprietary medicaments.Analysis:The Tribunal analyzed the label of the product, which described it as Gentamycin Injection I.P. (Vet) marketed by Veterinary Division Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. The Tribunal referred to Chapter Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 of the Tariff, defining patent or proprietary medicaments. It was noted that the name on the label matched the name specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, with no brand name as required for patent or proprietary classification. The presence of a cattle head symbol on the label did not establish a connection with the manufacturer or marketing organization.Precedent and Interpretation:The Tribunal referred to the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, where the distinction between 'house mark' and 'product mark' was discussed. It was highlighted that a monograph identifying the manufacturer alone does not make the medicine patent or proprietary. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a product mark or brand name for identification indicated that the product was generic and not proprietary.Decision and Conclusion:After considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's classification and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal directed that any refund, if applicable, would be subject to the law on unjust enrichment. The decision was made in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., ensuring compliance with the principles of unjust enrichment.Outcome:The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, concluding that the Veterinary Medicine Gentamycin Injection I.P. should be classified under sub-heading No. 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff. The judgment emphasized the importance of brand names and product marks in determining the classification of medicaments under the Tariff, in alignment with legal precedents and principles of unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 