Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.250 seconds)

Dec 24 1986 (TRI)

Collector of Customs Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-24-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC769Tri(Delhi)

..... with import of components, assemblies and vehicles from japan. one can understand the logic behind payment of royalty. when suzuki transferred the technical knowhow and permitted maruti to use its patents and designs, suzuki had naturally expected to be compensated for it. when the indigenisation programme of maruti progressed, import of components from suzuki would gradually go on decreasing. that would ..... , we find substance in the argument of maruti that payment of royalty/fee under the licence agreement was relatable directly to indigenous manufacture of components and vehicles to suzuki's patents, designs and specifications. similarly, use of the trade mark "maruti-suzuki" was also for marketing of the indigenously manufactured goods in india. neither the royalty nor the trade mark "maruti ..... on the board of directors of maruti. (2) licence agreement :- under this agreement, maruti acquired the right and technical knowhow to manufacture cars and their components in india to the patents, designs and specifications of suzuki on payment of lumpsum royalty of $ 24/- lakhs plus 3% running royalty. (3) purchase and supply agreement :- this agreement related to import of skd/ckd .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1986 (TRI)

Collector of Customs Vs. S.B. Plastic Industries and ors.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-24-1986

Reported in : (1988)LC573Tri(Delhi)

..... to the government of india, ministry of finance, new delhi for review. before the letter is issued it should be ensured by the coordination unit that it does not contain patent errors or inaccuracies and when necessary the unit shall remit the draft letter back to the group refer for clarification. obviously inadvertent errors minor discrepancies etc. should however be corrected .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1986 (TRI)

inderjit Singh Bawa and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-19-1986

Reported in : (1986)(7)LC214Tri(Delhi)

..... the pronouncement of judgment which materials could not be placed despite due diligence and having a material effect on the decision. a rectification of error is restricted merely to a patent or apparent mistake on the face of the record. the submissions of the learned counsel on the grounds of discount, freight, and valuation go to the material aspects of the ..... in the case of t.s. balaram v. volkart brothers, bombay (air 1971 sc 2204) it was held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. to the same effect was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1986 (TRI)

German Remedies Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-17-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)ECC150

..... , the learned sr. advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants, he has reiterated the facts. shri engineer, the learned advocate has pleaded that the appellant is a manufacturer of patent and proprietory medicines and the goods fail under tariff item no. 14e of the central excise tariff. he has referred to the notification no. 117/66 dated 16-7-1966 ..... the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. in terms of the notification no. 161/66-ce, dated 8-10-1966 the central government exempts patent or proprietory medicines falling under ti l4e of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944 from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1986 (TRI)

Bramec Suri (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-08-1986

Reported in : (1986)(26)ELT423TriDel

..... this question could be considered in hearing the appeal only. hence the reference to this test report in the order of the collector and his reliance on the same was patently erroneous. we may incidentally note that under the same application the department wanted to file a test report of a sample drawn on 7-1-1974 and that prayer was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1986 (TRI)

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Nov-10-1986

Reported in : (1987)(10)LC246Tri(Delhi)

..... or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product, as well as, packing or re-packing from oulk in the case of some specified products only like manufactured tobacco or patent or proprietory medicines. the goods, in question, are not amongst those specified, (iv) it cannot be held that packing was incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product ..... provide for the process of filling or packing to be deemed as manufacture. such deeming provisions exist in section 2(f) of the act but they applied to manufactured tobacco, patent or proprietary medicines and cosmetics. they do not apply to mineral turpentine oil.the process of filling or packing of duty paid mineral turpentine oil at paharpur or budge budge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1986 (TRI)

Bakelite Hylam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-21-1986

Reported in : (1986)(8)LC59Tri(Delhi)

..... and literature given by the manufacturers/suppliers all the goods are shown as being flat. the supplier was the same for m/s. weldekor and m/s. wood polymer, the patent number is also the same.34. the letter to the customs from the brussels nomenclature directorate./ director was a correct interpretation of the tariff headings. it is not the personal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 1986 (TRI)

Raj Brothers Agencies Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-30-1986

Reported in : (1986)(9)ECC157

..... to section 2f(ia) and (iii) of the central excise act which made particular reference to packing only in respect of manufactured tobacco and re-packing from bulk packs of patent and proprietary medicines. in respect of the names furnished in the note book, he would say that no weight could be attached to them because they were not regularly kept .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1986 (TRI)

Dwarka Prasad Lulla Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-28-1986

Reported in : (1986)(7)LC253Tri(Delhi)

..... after thought.6. before parting with the case, i would also like to point out that the impugned order-in-original, as confirmed by the appellate court, suffers from the patent infirmities, that is to say- (i) that from a combined reading of section 11-d and section 111(p) ibid, it is clear that only the notified goods can be .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1986 (TRI)

Bata India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-23-1986

Reported in : (1986)(9)ECC198

..... amounts to manufacture only if section 2(f) of the central excises & salt act were to so define the term manufacture.it is only in the context of tobacco and patent and proprietory medicines falling under section 14e that labelling and relabelling has been stated as process of manufacture. in respect of shoes, however, there is no such definition of manufacture .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //