Pharmacopoeial medicine classification turns on essential character; manufacturer's name alone does not create a proprietary product.

Mere printing of the manufacturer's name on capsules and containers does not, by itself, make a medicine a patent or proprietary product where it is prepared according to a standard pharmacopoeia and sold under a pharmacopoeial description. On the admitted facts, the goods conformed to the standard pharmacopoeia and retained their essential character despite the manufacturer's name. They were therefore not classifiable as patent or proprietary medicine under Tariff Item 14(E) and remained covered by Notification 55/75.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere indication of the manufacturer's name on capsules and containers renders the product a patent or proprietary medicine classifiable under Tariff Item 14(E), or whether medicines prepared in accordance with a standard pharmacopoeia and sold under a pharmacopoeial description remain covered by Notification 55/75.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was that mere printing or indication of the manufacturer's name does not by itself create a proprietary interest in a medicine prepared according to a standard pharmacopoeia. On the facts, the product bore only the manufacturer's name and the department had not disputed that it conformed to the standard pharmacopoeia and was sold under a pharmacopoeial description. The presence of the manufacturer's name therefore did not alter the essential character of the goods for classification purposes.

Conclusion: The product was not a patent or proprietary medicine under Tariff Item 14(E) and was correctly treated as covered by Notification 55/75. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

---