<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74801</link>
    <description>Medicines whose names are specified in a pharmacopoeia fall outside the first limb of Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff for patent or proprietary medicines. The legend &quot;Bengal Chemicals&quot; printed on pilfer-proof caps was treated as a manufacturer&#039;s name used generally, not as a distinctive brand name or mark indicating a proprietary trade connection in the medicines themselves. In the absence of any special design, logo, or other indicia of proprietary interest, the second limb was also not satisfied. The medicines were therefore not classifiable as patent or proprietary medicines under Item 14E, and the excise demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:28:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74801</link>
      <description>Medicines whose names are specified in a pharmacopoeia fall outside the first limb of Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff for patent or proprietary medicines. The legend &quot;Bengal Chemicals&quot; printed on pilfer-proof caps was treated as a manufacturer&#039;s name used generally, not as a distinctive brand name or mark indicating a proprietary trade connection in the medicines themselves. In the absence of any special design, logo, or other indicia of proprietary interest, the second limb was also not satisfied. The medicines were therefore not classifiable as patent or proprietary medicines under Item 14E, and the excise demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>