House marks on medicament labels do not create brand-name status when goods are sold under generic names.

Markings such as "Core IV", "Core Tabs" and similar expressions on medicament labels were treated as house marks, not brand names, because the goods were marketed under their pharmacopoeial or generic names and the disputed expressions only indicated a connection with the manufacturer. Applying the distinction between a house mark and a product mark, the decision states that a name used merely as a manufacturer identifier does not make goods patent or proprietary medicines under Chapter 30. On that classification basis, the assessee was not entitled to retain Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the markings "Core IV", "Core Tabs" and similar expressions on the labels/containers of medicaments constituted a brand name so as to make the goods patent or proprietary medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; and (ii) whether, on that basis, the assessee was entitled to retain Modvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods.

Issue (i): whether the markings "Core IV", "Core Tabs" and similar expressions on the labels/containers of medicaments constituted a brand name so as to make the goods patent or proprietary medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The labels showed that the products were described in bold by their pharmacopoeial or generic names, while the expressions "Core IV", "Core Tabs" and "Corflam" appeared only as secondary markings. The Court applied the distinction between a house mark and a product mark or brand name and held that a name which merely indicates a connection with the manufacturer, without showing that the goods are marketed and asked for by that name, does not constitute a brand name. Since the goods were sold under their pharmacopoeial names and the disputed expressions were used uniformly as identifiers of the manufacturer, the markings did not establish patent or proprietary character.

Conclusion: The markings were only house marks and not brand names; the goods were not patent or proprietary medicines on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether, on that basis, the assessee was entitled to retain Modvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods.

Analysis: Once the disputed expressions were held to be merely house marks and the medicines were found to be marketed under pharmacopoeial names, the foundation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view disappeared. The exported goods were not shown to be branded patent or proprietary medicines, and the credit consequence followed from that classification finding. The Court therefore held that the assessee could not retain the Modvat credit on the footing accepted by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to retain the Modvat credit; the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A mark that merely identifies the manufacturer and does not serve as the name by which the goods are known and asked for in the market is only a house mark, not a brand name, and goods sold under pharmacopoeial names do not become patent or proprietary medicines merely because such a house mark appears on the packing.

---