1999 (3) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... both the appeals are being disposed of by one common order. 2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate, submitted that their product has been held to be patent or proprietary medicament by the Collector (Appeals) as the lable carried a distinct design in the form of four bars, two of which were black and the other two were plain. The Collector (Appeals) had further found that as these patterns were on their other medicines also, this established a relationship between the manufacturer and the medicament and, therefore, the medicine was a patent or proprietary medicine. The learned Advocate submitted that show cause notice dated 25-11-1992 was issued to classify the medicine under sub-heading 3003.10 as the labels were found to be not pla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....label; that unless the colour scheme of the label was registered in favour of the appellant, it could not be regarded as a trade mark of the manufacturer; that if the same colour scheme or colours could be used by any manufacturer and in fact have been so used, the question of regarding such medicament as P or P medicament could not arise at all. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order does not survive after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). 3. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order and emphasised the fact that the allegation contained in the show cause notice was about....