https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101975 The presence of a manufacturer's name in bold letters on a medicament label did not, by itself, make the product a patent or proprietary medicament. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the distinction between a house name and a brand name, and found that the label evidence was insufficient to show that the goods had acquired proprietary character. The appellate challenge did not establish that the Supreme Court principle relied on was inapplicable on the facts, so the classification was upheld and the Revenue's objection failed. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:06:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101975 The presence of a manufacturer's name in bold letters on a medicament label did not, by itself, make the product a patent or proprietary medicament. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the distinction between a house name and a brand name, and found that the label evidence was insufficient to show that the goods had acquired proprietary character. The appellate challenge did not establish that the Supreme Court principle relied on was inapplicable on the facts, so the classification was upheld and the Revenue's objection failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101975