Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the medicines manufactured and cleared by the appellant were proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E on the basis of the labels used.
Analysis: The disputed labels were examined to see whether the manner of printing, size, design, and lettering created an association of the preparations with the manufacturer so as to make the goods proprietary medicines. The decisive question was whether the manufacturer's name on the labels was so prominent as to alter the character of the preparations. The Board found that the wording showing the manufacturing details was only what was required under Rule 94 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and did not make the medicines proprietary in nature. It further found that the manufacturer's name was not more prominent than the name of the preparation.
Conclusion: The medicines were not proprietary medicines within Tariff Item 14E, and the order of the Collector was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere display of the manufacturer's name and mandatory label particulars does not, without more, render a medicinal preparation a proprietary medicine; classification depends on whether the label as a whole creates identification of the product with the manufacturer.