LexM/S ASTRA PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIS ASTRA PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH DECEMBER 16, 1994 [R.M. SAHAI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Central Excise Tariff-Item 14E- Explanation I and II-Scope and interpretation of 20% Dextrose Injections '-Cover carrying the name 'AP-Astra'- C Injections mentioned in Pharmacopoeia-Held injections were not patent and proprietary medicines dutiable under Tariff Item 14E-Mark 'AP- Astra' held only a monograph which identified the manufacturer-It did not establish any relationship between mark and medicine~Distinction between 'House Mark' and 'Product Mark' in respect of pharmaceutical D products discu~sed E F G . The appellant was manufacturing 20% dextrose injections carrying the name 'AP-Astra'. It being one of the medicines specified in pharmacopoeia was wholly exempt from duty. Therefore, the appellant cleared their products without paying any duty since the date of manufacture in December, 1978 till 23rd January, 1982, when a show- cause notice was issued to it as to why dextrose manufactured by it may not be subjected to duty under Item No.14E of the Central Excise Tariff. The case of the Revenue Department was that though the injections were mentioned in phar~acopoeia the appellant was not entitled to exemption because on the cover it carried the name 'AP- Astra '.According to Department, since the medicine was described by a monogram and it established a relation between the manufacturer and the medicine, it was liable to duty under Explanation I to 'Item 14E. The Tribunal held that letters 'AP' did not constitute a monogram because the two letters are not interwoven but they being placed side by side in an artistic manner on the top it made the medicine manufactured by the appellant as a patent or proprietary medicine attracting central excise duty under tariff item 14E. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal to this Coµrt. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the· order of the Tribunal, H this Court 692 + • ASTRA PHARM. (P) LTD. v. COLL. OF CENT. EXC. 693 HELD: 1. Dextrose injections manufactured by the appellant in the A relevant years were not patent and proprietary medicines dutiable under tariff item 14-E of the Schedule. [699 EJ 2. A patent or proprietary medicine to attract levy under tariff item 14E must either be a medicine which was not specified in a Pharmacopoeia or other publication and carried on it or its container B name of the produce by symbol or invented name etc. A medicine of which the producer is the proprietor and it is known by its name would be covered in this clause. The other class of patent or proprietary medicines to which this tariff item applies are those medicines which have a brand name or a registered trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and carry such marks or symbol, monogram C as to establish relation between medicine and producer or manufacturer. That is, the writing or monogram on the medicine must establish that it was the producer· or the manufacturer who was proprietor of the medicine. [696 H, 697 A to BJ 3. The first part of the Explanation to Tariff Item 14E widens the D ambit of the entry by extending it to any drug or medicinal preparation for use in internal or external administration for prevention of ailments in human beings or_ animals. But then it narrows it by restricting the applicability of the tariff item to only such medicines which bear either on itself or on its container or both a name which is not specified in a monograph in a Pharmacopoeia. This obviously is not applicable to the E appellant as the injections manufactured by the appellant are specified in a Pharmacopoeia. The other class of medicines to which this Explanation applies are those which have a brand name that is a name of a registered trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The medicine manufactured by the appellants is not registered F under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Therefore, it _would attract levy only if its container or packing carried any distinctive marks so as to establish the relation between the medicine and the manufacturer. [697 F to HJ 4. The identification of a medicine should not be equated with the G produce mark. Identification is compulsory under the Drug Rules. Technically it is known as 'house mark'. The 'AP' or 'Astra' on the container or p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.