Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Oboi Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Oboi Laboratories vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 09, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39949

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Oboi Laboratories

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

1. the appeal arises out of the order of the commissioner (appeals), mumbai.2. briefly the facts are that the appellant manufactures two medicaments, viz. obroquin injection 30 ml and cloroquine phosphate injection 30 ml. the appellant filed a classification list claiming classification of the goods as patent and proprietary medicines under heading 3003.10 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act. the appellant is mainly exporting the goods. the department's contention is that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under heading 3003.20 in the light of the supreme court's decision in the case of astra pharmaceuticals v. cce chandigarh department's contention is that the products in question have retained the generic names and therefore are not p or p medicines. in the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) after verifying the copies of labels submitted by the appellant, found that the generic name of the products is conspicuously displayed on the label. in the case of one product, i.e. chloroquine phosphate injection, the name of the appellant, i.e. oboi laboratories, does not even appear on the label.he also holds that there is no house mark on the label. he found that the generic name of the product is shown more conspicuously on the label of the product. rejecting the contention of the appellant that the goods are classifiable under heading 3003.10, the commissioner classified them under heading 3003.20.4. we have perused the labels filed along with the appeal papers and find that in one of the products the patented name "obroquin" is conspicuously mentioned on the label. in so far as the other product in question is concerned, it does not carry any house name. the commissioner's contention that the generic name is also conspicuously mentioned in the label and therefore the medicines are generic medicines and not p or p cannot be supported in view of the fact that the house name is conspicuously mentioned on the labels that accompany one of.....

Full Judgment

1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai.

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant manufactures two medicaments, viz. Obroquin Injection 30 ml and Cloroquine Phosphate Injection 30 ml. The appellant filed a classification list claiming classification of the goods as patent and proprietary medicines under Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant is mainly exporting the goods. The department's contention is that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 3003.20 in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals v. CCE Chandigarh department's contention is that the products in question have retained the generic names and therefore are not P or P medicines. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) after verifying the copies of labels submitted by the appellant, found that the generic name of the products is conspicuously displayed on the label. In the case of one product, i.e. Chloroquine Phosphate Injection, the name of the appellant, i.e. Oboi Laboratories, does not even appear on the label.

He also holds that there is no house mark on the label. He found that the generic name of the product is shown more conspicuously on the label of the product. Rejecting the contention of the appellant that the goods are classifiable under Heading 3003.10, the Commissioner classified them under Heading 3003.20.

4. We have perused the labels filed along with the appeal papers and find that in one of the products the patented name "Obroquin" is conspicuously mentioned on the label. In so far as the other product in question is concerned, it does not carry any house name. The Commissioner's contention that the generic name is also conspicuously mentioned in the label and therefore the medicines are generic medicines and not P or P cannot be supported in view of the fact that the house name is conspicuously mentioned on the labels that accompany one of the products. We, therefore, hold that the product Obroquin is classifiable under Heading 3003.10 whereas Chloroquine Phosphate is classifiable under Heading 3003.20 as a generic medicine. Thus we allow the appeal partly in respect of the products on which the house name is prominently mentioned and reject the appeal in respect of the product where only generic name is mentioned on the label, classifying them under 3003.10 and 3003.20 of the Schedule to CETA respectively.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial