TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (2) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denied the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 245/83 and also for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 45/82, dated 28th February 1982 in respect of the item `Water for injection' manufactured and cleared by them for the period February 1986 to December 1986. 3. The facts of the case are that the show cause notice dated 21-1-1987 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise alleging that the appellant had manufactured and cleared `water for injection' falling under Tariff Item No. 14E of the erstwhile Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the same fell under sub-heading No. 3003.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act from 1-3-1986, for which they had been paying duty by claiming deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the guidance of Superintendent. The ld. Collector has held that even if they have filed a classification list by quoting the wrong Notification, even then it was within the jurisdiction of the proper officer to correct the reference to the notification which is applicable in the case of appellants after making such enquiry as the proper officer deemed fit as per the authority of sub-rule (2) of Rule 173(B). Therefore, in that premise, the ld. Collector has set aside the Assistant Collector's orders denying the benefit of Notification No. 45/82 as amended and directed him to consider granting the benefit. 5. In this appeal, the appellants are contending that the Collector had cursorily rejected their plea to consider correct classif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18-2-1986 of the Superintendent cannot be considered as a order on classification. On merits, it is stated by them that the item "Water for Injection I.P" is a Pharmacopoeial preparation covered under Indian Pharmacopoeia (3rd edition 1985) Vol. II page 545 and that it is not a patent or proprietary product as it is marketed without any monogram, symbol or Trade Mark of the manufacturers and therefore, Tariff Item 14E or sub-heading 3003.19 under the new tariff is not attracted. It is submitted by them that it is a Pharmaceutical Aid, which is not patent or proprietary and therefore, the classification of the product prior to 28-2-1986 has to be under Tariff Item 68 and thereafter under sub-heading 3003.20. It is also submitted that the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 1987 [since reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (SC)] in respect of one of their drugs 20% Dextrose injection. The said item was classified under Tariff Item 14E and the Tribunal had taken a view that the use of the company's name Astra IDL disentitled them from classification under Tariff Item 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has negatived the revenue's contention and set-aside the Tribunal's order and has held that the use of the word `Astra' is only of a house name and that it is not a trade mark. We have carefully perused the records and also the grounds made before us. The Collector (Appeals) has taken a view that the appellants had not challenged the question of classification effected by the Superintendent in this case. This aspect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the assessee's own case, the appeal succeeds on classification. 12. As in the case of DEXTROSE INJECTION, subject matter of the above judgment, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a distinction between `House Mark' and `Product Mark' (brand name) and the monograph of the appellant has been held to be a House Mark. Therefore, the `water for injection I.P.' which is a pharmacopoeial preparation (covered by both Indian Pharmacopoeia as well as Martindale) has to be treated as a `medicament' other than a patent or proprietary product. It is classifiable as such under Tariff Item 68 under the old tariff (prior to 28-2-1986) and under the Heading 3003.20 under the new tariff (after 28-2-1986). 13. ....