https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85288 The Collector of Central Excise determined that the words 'RL' on medicinal labels constituted a brand name establishing a connection between the manufacturer and the product. However, the appellant argued that 'RL' was a house mark for manufacturer identification, not a proprietary brand. The Supreme Court decision clarified that the tariff item applies to medicines with registered brand names, and since the medicines lacked such names, the levy required distinctive marks linking the medicine to the manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld the time-barred demand finding and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing 'RL' as a house mark and rejecting its proprietary brand status. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85288 The Collector of Central Excise determined that the words 'RL' on medicinal labels constituted a brand name establishing a connection between the manufacturer and the product. However, the appellant argued that 'RL' was a house mark for manufacturer identification, not a proprietary brand. The Supreme Court decision clarified that the tariff item applies to medicines with registered brand names, and since the medicines lacked such names, the levy required distinctive marks linking the medicine to the manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld the time-barred demand finding and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing 'RL' as a house mark and rejecting its proprietary brand status. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85288