https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89988 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the classification of medicaments under Chapter Heading 3003.10, as opposed to 3003.20. It was determined that the distinct labeling of "Q-max" on the product did not establish a clear relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer, following the Supreme Court's precedent distinguishing between house mark and product mark. The Tribunal emphasized that the use of different colors for the manufacturer's name and address did not create an association, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:22:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89988 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the classification of medicaments under Chapter Heading 3003.10, as opposed to 3003.20. It was determined that the distinct labeling of "Q-max" on the product did not establish a clear relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer, following the Supreme Court's precedent distinguishing between house mark and product mark. The Tribunal emphasized that the use of different colors for the manufacturer's name and address did not create an association, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89988