1996 (3) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the words 'RL' on the labels of medicinal preparations as a brand name.
- Determination of whether the words 'RL' establish a connection between the manufacturer and the product.
- Analysis of the applicability of the tariff item to medicines specified in a Pharmacopoeia.
- Examination of the distinction between a house mark and a product mark in the pharmaceutical business.
- Assessment of whether the words 'RL' on the container or packing were used as a house mark.
- Evaluation of the Collector's finding that the demand is time-barred.

Interpretation of 'RL' as a Brand Name:
The Collector of Central Excise held that the words 'RL' on the labels of medicines gave the impression of a brand name and indicated a connection between the manufacturer and the product. However, the appellant argued that the words 'RL' were a house mark used for identification of the manufacturer and did not establish a proprietary interest in the medicine. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision and previous tribunal rulings to support their position.

Applicability of Tariff Item to Medicines in Pharmacopoeia:
The Supreme Court decision cited by the appellant clarified that the tariff item applies to medicines with brand names registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Since the medicines in question were specified in a Pharmacopoeia and did not bear a registered brand name, the levy would only apply if the container or packing had distinctive marks linking the medicine to the manufacturer.

Distinction Between House Mark and Product Mark:
The judgment highlighted the distinction between a house mark, used for all products of a manufacturer, and a product mark or brand name, which identifies specific products. The presence of 'AP' or 'Astra' on the container was considered a house mark projecting the manufacturer's image, not establishing a direct link between the mark and the medicine.

Time-Barred Demand and Dismissal of Appeal:
Additionally, the Collector's finding that the demand was time-barred was not challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal upheld this finding, along with the conclusion that the words 'RL' were a house mark for manufacturer identification, not a proprietary brand name. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of merit in challenging both the interpretation of 'RL' and the time-barred demand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues raised regarding the interpretation of the words 'RL' on medicinal labels, the applicability of tariff items, the distinction between house and product marks in the pharmaceutical industry, and the time-barred nature of the demand.