https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94345 Gentamycin Injection I.P. (Vet) was treated as a medicament specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, so it did not become a patent or proprietary medicament merely because it was marketed for veterinary use. The relevant Chapter 30 entry applied only where the product name or accompanying marks showed a trade connection with a particular manufacturer or marketer. The cattle-head symbol and label were held to indicate veterinary use, not brand identity, and a house mark was distinguished from a product mark. The higher-duty classification was rejected, and the goods were held not liable to duty as patent or proprietary medicaments, subject to any refund being governed by unjust enrichment. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:26:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94345 Gentamycin Injection I.P. (Vet) was treated as a medicament specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, so it did not become a patent or proprietary medicament merely because it was marketed for veterinary use. The relevant Chapter 30 entry applied only where the product name or accompanying marks showed a trade connection with a particular manufacturer or marketer. The cattle-head symbol and label were held to indicate veterinary use, not brand identity, and a house mark was distinguished from a product mark. The higher-duty classification was rejected, and the goods were held not liable to duty as patent or proprietary medicaments, subject to any refund being governed by unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94345