House name on label does not by itself make a medicament a patent or proprietary product.

The presence of a manufacturer's name in bold letters on a medicament label did not, by itself, make the product a patent or proprietary medicament. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the distinction between a house name and a brand name, and found that the label evidence was insufficient to show that the goods had acquired proprietary character. The appellate challenge did not establish that the Supreme Court principle relied on was inapplicable on the facts, so the classification was upheld and the Revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the medicament manufactured by the respondent was a patent or proprietary medicament merely because the manufacturer's name appeared in bold letters on the label.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the Supreme Court's distinction between a manufacturer's house name and the brand name of a product. The presence of the manufacturer's name in bold letters on the label did not, by itself, establish that the goods had acquired the character of a patent or proprietary medicament. The appellate challenge offered no sufficient basis to show that the cited principle was inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the goods were not treated as patent or proprietary medicaments on the ground urged by the Revenue.

---