(i) Ventol Tablets;

(ii) Paltrim Suspension;

(iii) Apitas Syrum;

(iv) Ventol-B Tablets.

On the packages of the aforesaid patent/proprietory medicines, logo of the appellant company is also displayed after the name of the medicines as above. Thereafter, the name of the manufacturer i.e. the appellant company, is given. Thereafter, on the package, additional logo of the marketing firm's name, 'ACI', within rectangular design, is given. Thereafter, at the bottom of the package is the name of the marketing firm namely, M/s. Aparna Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. In the aforesaid arrangement of logos and the patent or proprietory name of the medicines, the dispute is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 would be available to the appellants herein or it would be denied, in as much as the packages or the bottles of the medicines as mentioned above, carry also the logo and the name of the marketing firm. Lower authorities have denied the benefit of the said Notification on the ground that the packages of the medicines carry the brand-name or trade-name of the marketing firm i.e. 'ACI' or M/s. Aparna Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., thereby creating an association in the course of trading of these medicines between the medicines and the marketing firm. Hence this appeal by the appellants before us.

2. Learned Consultant, Shri P.N. Sen on behalf of the appellant company, submits that medicines having brand-names, Apitas, Ventol and Paltrim, are owned by the appellants. There is no dispute about that. He also submits that since packages carry the logo of the appellant as well at a place above the logo of the marketing firm this matter should be considered to create an association in the mind of the purchaser of the goods between the medicine and the appellants herein. He also submits that since the names of the products i.e. Apitas, Ventol and Paltrim, are owned by the appellants, it is this product name which creates an association in the course of trading of these medicines between the appellants and the medicines. Looking at that angle, submits the learned Consultant, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, should not be denied merely on the ground that an additional logo along with the name of the marketing firm is carried on the packages.

3. Opposing the contentions, learned S.D.R., Shri T. Prem Kumar for the Revenue, urges that since the logo and the name of the marketing firm, is available on the packages of the medicines, therefore, this is the trade-name which creates an association with the logo, 'ACI' is belonging to another person, a trader, who cannot be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. Therefore, the benefit of the said Notification cannot be allowed in respect of these medicines manufactured by the appellants. For his arguments, he relies upon the following two Judgements of the Tribunal :-