Full Judgment
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. The respondents filed a classification list in respect of their products and claimed the classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 3003.20. The adjudicating authority modified the classification of the products under Chapter Heading 3003.10 leviable to duty treating these medicaments as P & P medicaments as the word "Q-max" was printed in bold red letters in distinct manner on the label which established clear relationship with the product and the owner. The respondents filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the order passed by the Collector and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.
3. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that to make a medicine P & P medicine a brand name i.e. a name or a registered trade name or any other mark such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words any writing which is used in relation to the medicine for the purpose of indicating the connection between medicine or some person should have been used. He submits that by printing the word "Q-max" in red ink and rest of the address in blue ink, a clear identity between the medicine and manufacturer is established.
Therefore, he submits that the medicines, in question, are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
4. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it is statutory requirement to print the manufacturers' name on the label and the name of the manufacture is printed in plain block letters. He, further, submits that the use of two colours cannot be any stretch of imagination create association between the product and the manufacturer. He, further, submits that there is difference between the house mark and trade mark. Only house mark has been printed on the label. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharamceuticals (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.
6. In this case, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the name and the address of the manufacturer is written on the label and the only objection by the adjudicating authority is that the name is printed in red ink wherein the address is printed in the blue ink but in our opinion of this will not make the medicaments P or P medicines.
7. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal had taken the ground that the wording "Q-max" in red ink and the rest of the address in the blue ink clearly establish the identity between the medicine and the manufacturer. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (supra). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is a difference between the house mark and the product mark. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case held that the AP or Astra on the container or packing was used to project the image of manufacturer and it did not establish any relationship between the mark and the medicine.
8. In the present the word "Q-max" on the label cannot be said to be distinctive mark so as to establish relationship between medicine and the manufacturer, as observed by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while making distinction between the house Mark and product mark held as under: In the pharmaceutical business a distinction is made between a house mark and a product mark. The former is used on all the products of the manufacturer. It is usually a device in the form of an emblem, words or both. For each product a separate mark known as a product mark or a brand name is used which is invariably a word or a combination of a word and letter or numeral by which the product is identified and asked for. In respect of all products both the product mark and house mark will appear side by side on all the labels, cartons, etc. Goods are ordered only by the product mark or brand name. The house mark serves as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the image of the manufacturer generally." 9. In view of the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The same is rejected.