E.U. Medicaments Vs. C.C. Ex.

E.U. Medicaments vs C.C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 07, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35179

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/35179
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: May 07, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E.U. Medicaments

Respondent

C.C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(171)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

i) generic & pharmacopoeia description given were bolder then additional words. "the apex court in the case of astro pharmaceutical (p) ltd 1995 (75) elt 214 sc has classified the distinction between 'house mark' & 'product work' & holding that house mark is compulsory under the drug rule & product mark is based-----is the identity upheld the order of the assistant commissioner." b) there is no finding in both the orders whether the disputed invented words on the packages are words permitted & mentioned in the pharmacopoeial. therefore the additional involved words would constitute & bring in the application of note 2(ii) of chapter 30 to cause for a classification under 3003.10. the note does not stipulate any restrictions on size of the type front used or package size to exclude classification for 3003.10. there is no reason to find the different marks as 'house mark' of the appellant.c) in this view the orders of the lower authority cannot be sustained .they are to be set aside and appeals allowed.

Full Judgment

i) Generic & Pharmacopoeia description given were bolder then additional words.

"The Apex court in the case of Astro Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd 1995 (75) ELT 214 SC has classified the distinction between 'House Mark' & 'product work' & holding that House Mark is compulsory under the Drug Rule & Product Mark is based-----is the identity upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner." b) There is no finding in both the orders whether the disputed invented words on the packages are words permitted & mentioned in the Pharmacopoeial. Therefore the additional involved words would constitute & bring in the application of note 2(ii) of chapter 30 to cause for a classification under 3003.10. The note does not stipulate any restrictions on size of the Type front used or package size to exclude classification for 3003.10. There is no reason to find the different marks as 'House Mark' of the appellant.

c) In this view the orders of the lower authority cannot be sustained .

They are to be set aside and appeals allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties E.U. Medicaments vs C.C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu