TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber Vapi/ch/30/1/96 and ECC number MECS5406PXM001. 2. The appellant has requested for provisional assessment on 10-3-1999 for the following product : (1) Erythromycin Estilate Oral Suspension 60ml. U.S.P. (2) Erythromycin Estolate Tablets 250 Mg. IP. (3) Dexamethasane Tab. 0.5 mg. I.P. (4) Paracetamol 500 mg. Tab. IP. (5) Ibuprofen Tab. 200 mg. I.P. (6) Ibuprofen Tab. 400 mg. I.P. (7) Ciprofloacxin Hydrochloride Tab. 250 mg. I.P. (8) Ciprofloacxin Hydrochloride 500 Mg. I.P. (9) Chloramphenicol ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds that, (a) The Dy C CEX. has erred in finalizing the provisional assessment of pharmaceutical products falling under C.S.H. No. 3003.20 as P or P Medicaments falling under C.S.H. No. 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (b) The Appellant would like to state that "rp Rhone Poulenc" is house mark/corporate logo/trading style or trade name of M/s. Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd., and therefore appearing on each and every product irrespective of the pharmaceutical products having their brand or generic name. RPIL has registered their house mark with Trade Mark Registry under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is pertinent to note that both the product name/brand name and lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not specified any pharmacopoeia or other publication of Government. Thus the product covered in the present show cause notice are a generic product and name of the same appears in the pharmacopoeia and therefore it does not become a patent and proprietary medicines merely by an appearance of company's logo on the packaging material. It is also pertinent to note that as per the Drug Rule, it is compulsory to mention the name of the manufacture, which anyway establishes the relation between the manufacture and the product. Therefore, raising an objection on the basis of "rp Rhone Poulenc" which nothing but the house mark/corporate logo/trading style of RPIL is certainly defeating the purpose of generic medicine. (e) &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y RPIL for their generic product. In addition to the aforesaid, the Appellant would like to draw your attention to the Clause 2A of Articles of Association of RPIL wherein the detailed information is given about the mark "Rhone Poulenc". (h) In view of the aforesaid submission, it is crystal clear that the products classified as generic medicines under C.S.H. No. 3003.20 of CETA, 1985 are correctly classified by us on behalf of RPIL which were attracting NIL rate of duty prior to 1-6-1998 and thereafter 8% central excise duty. (i) In view of the aforesaid submission, the Appellant strongly feel that there is no contravention of any of the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icines covered by Chapter 3003.20 or P. & P. Medicines covered by Chapter 3003.10. This dispute has arisen because the disputed products were bearing a logo as "rp Rhone Poulenc". It is alleged by the Department that the above mentioned logo is a brand name which is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellant has admitted the registration of the aforesaid logo under the above mentioned Act. The Department has therefore treated them as branded P & P medicines and classified them under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.10. 8. The appellant has stated that they are using the said logo on loan licence basis and the same is appearing on each and every product manufactured for M/s. Rhone Poulenc, whether the pharm....