https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120121 A house mark used only to project the manufacturer's image, and not to identify a separate brand owner in trade, led the finished medicaments to be treated as goods under Heading 33.03 and therefore as nil-duty products. Because the finished goods were not patent or proprietary medicaments chargeable to duty, input duty credit on materials used in their manufacture was not admissible. The denial of input duty credit was upheld against the assessee. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120121 A house mark used only to project the manufacturer's image, and not to identify a separate brand owner in trade, led the finished medicaments to be treated as goods under Heading 33.03 and therefore as nil-duty products. Because the finished goods were not patent or proprietary medicaments chargeable to duty, input duty credit on materials used in their manufacture was not admissible. The denial of input duty credit was upheld against the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120121