<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (5) TMI 9 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1098</link>
    <description>Medicaments bearing a Russian-language label and the English inscription &quot;Gentamycin Injection I.P.&quot; were treated as patent and proprietary medicines under Chapter 30 because the label and brand name were sufficient to establish brand-name character. The script or language of the label was immaterial, as the Chapter 30 definition of a mark does not limit an invented word or brand to any particular script. Classification had to be determined on the condition of the goods at the time of clearance, and the same product could not be classified differently as patent and proprietary medicine or generic medicament depending on destination or use. The classification as patent and proprietary medicine was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s objection rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 9 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1098</link>
      <description>Medicaments bearing a Russian-language label and the English inscription &quot;Gentamycin Injection I.P.&quot; were treated as patent and proprietary medicines under Chapter 30 because the label and brand name were sufficient to establish brand-name character. The script or language of the label was immaterial, as the Chapter 30 definition of a mark does not limit an invented word or brand to any particular script. Classification had to be determined on the condition of the goods at the time of clearance, and the same product could not be classified differently as patent and proprietary medicine or generic medicament depending on destination or use. The classification as patent and proprietary medicine was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s objection rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>