TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. 2. As per facts on records, Core Healthcare Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In their declarations filed under Rule 173-B, the respondents have classified their products, cleared for home consumption under Heading 3003.20 chargeable to nil rate of duty. However, in respect of the products being exported by them, the classification has been claimed as Patent and Proprietary medicines falling under Heading 3003.10. Accordingly, the respondents cleared the said goods on payment of duty after availing the benefit of Modvat credit. 3. Proceedings were initiated proposing classification of the goods under Chapter 3003.20 attr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Pharmacopia pertaining to Indian, British and United States. One can not get such medicines by calling Core IV, Core Tabs, NS, 5D, or 10D in the market because the medicines as mentioned above are Pharmacopia products and being identified with those names only and not with the invented codes/names generated by the party and claimed to have been their brand names. I am putting some names of the medicines which are being manufactured and cleared by them under their brand names : - (1) CIPROCORE (2) GELEC (3) IMPRODEX (4) HYDROFAST-45, (5) HYDROFAST-33, (6) PLASMEX (7) METROMIDAZOLE. These are the names which are in fact the brand names of the product because these represents the relationship between products and mark. In other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exporting their goods. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (supra) that brand name is one by which the product is identified and asked for. In view of the brand names used on the products by the appellants, the products become PP medicines by virtue of second part of explanation given in Note 2(ii) to Chapter 30 and the product becomes chargeable to duty. However, since the appellants are using the brand names on their product when the same is exported under bond, they are not required to pay duty. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 57C cannot be made applicable in this case and the appellants are not required to reverse the Modvat credit availed by them on the inputs used in the manufacture of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the brand name of the respondents. The goods are not being sold by this brand name but by the generic name specified in Pharmacopoeia. The respondents have also not claimed that the brand name is registered under a trade and merchandise market or is known in the market under their trade name and the formula is specifically formulated by them. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., referred supra has made a distinction between the house mark and the trade name. A house mark is used in all the products and is a device in the form of an emblem, word or both. Whereas a product mark or brand name is used which is invariably a word or a combination of a word and letter or numeral, by which the produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Liva" will not make it as patent or proprietary medicine. To the same effect, is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Miaami Pharma & Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 788 (Tri.) that appearance of the letters 'MPC' embossed on the bottles is only a house mark and not product mark and the medicines cannot be classified under Heading 3003.10. It is further noticed that the same issue arose in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 313 (Tri. - Mumbai) and by following Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., it was held that where the goods are being manufactured under the names mentioned in Pharmacopoeia, they cannot be ....