Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Union Of India vs Indo-French Pharmaceutical Company on 4 November, 1982
He further submitted that the Supreme Court approved the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Indo French Pharmaceutical Co. (supra), as correctly enunciating the scope of Explanation I to item 14E of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs C.C.E on 16 December, 1994
4. Shri S. Srivastava, ld. DR submitted that the facts in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. (supra) was different from the facts in the present matter inasmuch as the letters "AP" did not constitute a monogram whereas in the present case word "WOCKHARDT" is mentioned very conspicuously which shows the relationship between the impugned product and the appellants; that it was observed in paragraph 5 of the judgment that "The Tribunal found that letter "AP" do 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". The ld. DR further submitted that the manner in which the word "WOCKHARDT" was printed on the label and which was not required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, clearly indicate the nexus between the medicines and manufacturer. He also contended that the extended period for demanding the duty was rightly invoked as the Appellants had not disclosed all the facts to the Department; that the fact that the word "WOCKHARDT" was embossed on the cap was not brought to the notice of the department at all. In reply the Counsel submitted that "WOCKHARDT" is only their house mark which does not make the medicine patent or proprietary.
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1