House mark medicaments treated as nil-duty goods, so input duty credit on manufacture was denied.

A house mark used only to project the manufacturer's image, and not to identify a separate brand owner in trade, led the finished medicaments to be treated as goods under Heading 33.03 and therefore as nil-duty products. Because the finished goods were not patent or proprietary medicaments chargeable to duty, input duty credit on materials used in their manufacture was not admissible. The denial of input duty credit was upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether input duty credit was admissible when the finished medicaments were cleared under a mark held to be a house mark and were therefore treated as exempt or chargeable to nil duty.

Analysis: The mark affixed on the goods was found to be intended to project the manufacturer's image and not to connect the goods with a separate brand owner in the course of trade. On that basis, the goods were treated as medicaments other than patent or proprietary medicaments under Heading 33.03, attracting nil duty. Since the finished goods were not dutiable as patent or proprietary medicaments, the credit availed on inputs used in their manufacture was not permissible.

Conclusion: The denial of input duty credit was upheld against the assessee.

---