Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.194 seconds)

Jan 23 2002 (TRI)

Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC544

..... interpretative note to rule 9(1)(c) provides that the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include, among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2002 (TRI)

Ferodo India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)(82)ECC584

..... technical assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators. without the licence and know how the goods can not be manufactured in india. without patent rights from the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the trade mark of the foreign collaborator. for ..... towards technical know how fees as well as the royalty for use of the licence for the sake of production and to use the trademark, patent, become related to the imported goods in question and also become conditions of sale for the import of the said goods. this view is ..... agreement, no transfer of know how, no payment for this transfer of know how fees and no payment of royalty and therefore, no use of patent, trademark etc. then there would have been no occasion to start the said know how related production and therefore, no question of import of capital ..... assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators, without the licence and know how the goods cannot be manufactured in india. further, without patent rights from the collaborators, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian ..... 9(1)(c) 1. the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2002 (TRI)

Kwality Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-08-2002

Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT296TriDel

..... ), all the properties, assets, work-in-progress, current assets, investments, powers, authorities, allotments, approvals and consents, licences, registrations, contracts, engagements, arrangements, rights, titles, interests, benefits and advantages of whatever nature, patents, trade marks, trade names, etc., stood vested in the transferee company i.e.appellant. all debts, liabilities, duties and obligations as per clause (f) of the scheme sanctioned by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 2002 (TRI)

J. Mitra and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-01-2002

Reported in : (2002)(140)ELT524TriDel

..... 3(c) has no application to such a situation in which one of two competing entries is residual to the other. the adjudicating authority's observations on this aspect are patently erroneous.4.5. we have also examined the applicability of this tribunal's decision in inter care ltd. (supra) to the issue on hand. in that case, an 'agglutinating serum .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2002 (TRI)

Saru International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-2002

Reported in : (2002)(142)ELT422TriDel

..... finish, waxing, blacking, smoothing (glazing), satin finishing, printing etc.leather may be coated or covered with a varnish or lacquer or with a pre-formed sheet of plastics (patent leaner or patent laminated leather) or may be coated with metal powder or metal leaf (metallised leather).learned dr submits that the above two explanations if read together will indicate that the ..... be taken. no show cause notice was issued as it was waived by the importers.3. the additional commissioner of customs confiscated the goods holding that the goods were 'patent leather'; that patent leather is one stage ahead of finished leather. the goods were confiscated and penalty was also imposed. against this order, the importers filed an appeal before the commissioner ..... ahead of finished leather but they have not produced any evidence in support of this contention. he submits that the glossary of terms as indicated above includes fancy leather and patent leather. he submits that whereas the contention of the appellants is supported by the above evidence, the department has not produced on record any evidence in support of their ..... notfn. no. 17/2001, dated 1-3-2001 (serial no. 136) was claimed.customs authorities subjected the said goods to examination. it was observed that the imported goods were 'patent leather'. customs authorities were of the view that the goods were not finished leather as declared by the importer. accordingly, a case of misdeclaration was booked. the importers were informed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2002 (TRI)

Vi John Beauty Tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC432

..... . further, in the case of wockhardt pvt. ltd. (supra) the tribunal held that mentioning the word "wockhardt" does not mean use of brand name so as to make medicament a patent or proprietary medicament. the decisions relied upon by the learned sdr are not applicable to the facts in the present matters. for instance in the case of elymer havells electrics .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (TRI)

Bentex Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : (2002)LC378Tri(Delhi)

..... of the act prior to 28-9-1996 when both these sections came into force could not be legally made. the impugned order of the commissioner in this regard is patently against the law.13. in view of what has been referred and discussed above and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order pf the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2002 (TRI)

Goodyear India Limited Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-09-2002

Reported in : (2002)(103)LC13Tri(Delhi)

..... preferred. for this purpose, where necessary the court/tribunal may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. in order, to avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of law, the court/tribunal would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2002 (TRI)

Encon Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Aug-27-2002

Reported in : (2003)(85)ECC68

..... the records and have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. the valuation on the basis of which the demand and imposition of penalty have been made is patently illegal. section 4(1)(b) of central excise act makes it clear that if normal sale price at the factory gate is not available and the price for delivery at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2002 (TRI)

Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Aug-02-2002

Reported in : (2002)(84)ECC366

..... name by the name 'kalvert' on any of the products in dispute in the present case. they had even produced search report received by them from the trade mark and patent company to show that the brand name 'kalvert' did not even stand registered in their name.the company, in terms of clause 8(i)(b) of the food products order .....

Tag this Judgment!


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