Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 22 results (0.108 seconds)

Dec 20 2004 (TRI)

Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Cc (Sea)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-20-2004

Reported in : (2005)(126)LC364Tri(Delhi)

..... "licensed vehicles and the parts and components therefore"; that as per article 2.1, mitsubishi has granted to the appellants a non-exclusive license to the technical assistance and the patents solely for purpose of assembling and manufacturing the licensed products and selling the same in specified territories; that according to article 1.5, "technical information" means all the lists, specifications ..... also, a perusal of the "license and technical assassinated agreement" reveals that m/s.mitsubishi had granted to hindustan motors ltd. a license to use the technical assistant and the patents solely for assembling and manufacturing the licensed product and the conditions of payment of consideration (yen 451,220,000) would be in three instalments without any reference to the goods .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2004 (TRI)

Barbour Vardhman Thread Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Aug-30-2004

Reported in : (2005)(98)ECC293

..... drawn our attention to technical collaboration agreement between m/s. barbour campbell ltd. and the appellants, according to which technical know-how shall mean and made all inventions, processes, formulations, patents, engineering and manufacturing skills and other technical information relating to the licensed product. the licensed product means only sewing threads, twines and braids, thus, the price paid by them for ..... held in the case of daewoo motors india ltd. v. cc, 2000 (115) elt 489 (tri), relied upon by the learned advocate that the payment for the licensed information and patent has nothing to do with the working of the plant and, therefore, lumpsum payment made by the appellants had no connection, whatsoever, in the working of the capital goods imported .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2004 (TRI)

Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce (Service Tax)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-07-2004

Reported in : (2004)(94)ECC465

..... up the appeal for hearing and disposal.2. we have perused the records and heard both sides. the appellant is a manufacturer of medicines. it entered into an agreement for patents, trademarks, brand names, etc. under registered user agreements, and/or licensed user agreement, the appellant allowed other manufacturers to produce medicines under trademarks owned by it. under the impugned order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2004 (TRI)

Humphrey and Colman Health Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-29-2004

Reported in : (2004)(114)LC179Tri(Delhi)

..... the products clearly mention as under: canifur : ayurvedic veterinary medicine an anti-dandruff, ectoparasiticidal, hair growth promoter and fur conditioner. canifur az : ayurvedic veterinary medicine. a patent herbal ectoparasiticidal and fur conditioner.9.2 it is thus apparent that even the labels on the impugned products, besides claiming them to be ayurvedic veterinary medicine, clearly mentions that ..... the distillate obtained on steam distillation of the product." he, furthets mentioned that section 3(h) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, while defining the term 'patent or proprietary medicine' in relation to ayurvedic system of medicine clearly mentions that formulation should contain only such ingredients mentioned in the formulae described in the authoritative books of ..... their products were ayurvedic medicaments not chargeable to central excise duty; that their bonafide conduct is also evident from the fact that in march, 1994, when the patented ayurvedic medicines attracted duty of excise, they filed classification under heading 30.03; that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants had any mala fide ..... the requirement is only that the ingredients of the product should find mention in the ayurvedic text book, the products would be classified as ayurvedic medicaments only though as patented medicines; that the larger bench of the tribunal in himtaj ayurvedic udyog kendra v. cce, allahabad ; affirmed by the supreme court in cce v. himtaj "having ingredients .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2004 (TRI)

Sh. Kamal Chandravadan Shah and Vs. C.C.E.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-22-2004

Reported in : (2004)(94)ECC279

..... the products clearly mention as under : canifur : ayurvedic veterinary medicine an anti-dandruff, ectoparasiticidal, hair growth promoter and fur conditioner. canifur az : ayurvedic veterinary medicine. a patent herbal ectoparasiticidal and fur conditioner.9.2 it is thus apparent that even the labels on the impugned products, besides claiming them to be ayurvedic veterinary medicine, clearly mentions that ..... distillate obtained on steam distillation of the product." he, further, mentioned that section 3(h) of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940, while defining the term 'patent or proprietory medicine' in relation to ayurvedic system of medicine clearly mentions that formulation should contain only such ingredients mentioned in the formulae described in the authoritative books of ..... their products were ayurvedic medicaments not chargeable to central excise duty; that their bonafide conduct is also evident from the fact that in march, 1994, when the patented ayurvedic medicines attracted duty of excise, they filed classification under heading 30.30; that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants had any malafide intention ..... the label of the products described the products as under : (i) canifur : an anti-dandruff ectoparasiticidal hair growth promotor and fur conditioner (ii) canifur az : a patent herbal ectoparasiticidal and fur conditioner.3.2 he, thus, contended that in view of the legal position laid down by the supreme court in sharma chemical works, the impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2004 (TRI)

Commr. of Customs and Central Vs. Endolabs Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-05-2004

Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC447

..... the respondents are being marketed. the mere fact that they are making norfloxacin tablet of 100 mg. strength and piroxicam in the form of gel will not make the medicament patent or proprietary medicament. the fact remains that the medicament bears a name which is specified in a pharmacopoeia. the pharmacopoeia only refers to the usual strength of norfloxacin tablet and ..... are as per specification of i.p.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. the revenue is contending that the two medicaments manufactured by the respondents are patent and proprietary medicament only on the ground that norfloxacin manufactured by them is of different strength than mentioned in i.p.1996 with addition of word 'dt' and the product ..... the container of the tablet mentions the description of the product as 'norfloxacin 100 dt' which is name altogether different from monogram appearing in i.p., and therefore, these are patent or proprietary medicaments classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10. he, further, submitted that the other product is also not classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 as the i.p. refers ..... as confirmed by the commissioner (appeals) or are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the tariff.2. shri u. raja ram, learned dr, submitted that medicament in question are patent or proprietary medicament classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 as the same are not specified in note 2(ii) to chapter 30 of the central excise tariff; that the respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2004 (TRI)

Procter and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-2004

Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT409TriDel

..... ayurvedic medicament even though the formula may not be as per text books. recently the supreme court in the case of naturalle health products v. cce (supra) has held that "patent ayurvedic medicament could be one where all the ingredients found mention in the authoritative text book of ayurveda though the formula for preparation of the medicaments is not in accordance ..... procter & gamble india ltd.; that the supreme court, after considering decisions of the court and the larger bench of the tribunal has held that "it is clear that a patent ayurvedic medicament could be one where all the ingredients find mention in the authoritative text books on ayurveda, though the formula for preparation of the medicament is not in accordance ..... works, 2003 (154) e.l.t. 328 (s.c.) and contended that vicks vaporub is thus classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 which covers both generic ayurvedic medicaments and patented ayurvedic medicaments. he also mentioned that the board vide circular no. 196/30/96, dated 3-4-1996 has clarified that use of the non-ayurvedic, non-therapeutic ingredients would ..... ayurvedic medicaments which are manufactured in accordance with the formula prescribed in the authoritative books of ayurvedic systems of medicine; that the provisions of section 3(h) would cover such patent or proprietary medicines which contain ingredients mentioned in ayurvedic text books and which are manufactured in accordance with the formula of the manufacturer and not in accordance with the formula .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2004 (TRI)

Dabhol Power Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jul-01-2004

Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC195

..... unique to dabhol, and are confidential information. therefore, an unconnected vendor will not be able to supply the goods unless the process and the associated drawing and engineering specifications, whether patented or not, are forwarded to the vendor, the learned counsel points out that reference to the instructions to vendors (itv) would clearly show the involvement of the service contractor in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2004 (TRI)

Panama Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Aug-13-2004

Reported in : (2005)(99)ECC483

..... that the commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice by mentioning the name menthol as one of the synthetic ingredients for treating the impugned product as a patent ayurvedic medicament. in naturalle health products case, the ingredients used by the appellants therein had sources as natural herbs and extracts taken from such herbs and were not synthetic products ..... by the supreme court as reported in 2003 (154) e.l.t. 323 (s.c.). the supreme court also in the case of naturally health products has held that the patent ayurvedic medicament could be one where all the ingredients find mention in authoritative text books on ayurveda, though the formula of preparation of medicament was not in accordance with the ..... it has been held by the supreme court in the case of naturalle health products (p) ltd. v. cce, hyderabad [2003 (158) e.l.t. 257 (s.c.)] that a patent ayurvedic medicament could be one where all the ingredients find mention in the authoritative text books on ayurveda; that the formula for preparation of the medicament may not be in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (TRI)

Cc and Ce Vs. Endolabs Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

..... the respondents are being marketed. the mere fact that they are making norfloxacin tablet of 100 mg. strength and piroxicam in the form of gel will not make the medicament patent or proprietary medicament. the fact remains that the medicaments bears a name which is specified in a pharmacopoeia. the pharmacopoeia only refers to the usual strength of norfloxacin tablet and ..... are as per specification of i.p.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. the revenue is contending that the two medicaments manufactured by the respondents are patent & proprietary medicament only on the ground that norfloxacin manufactured by them is of different strength than mentioned in lp, 1996 with addition of word 'dt' and the product piroxicam is ..... ; that the container of the tablet mentions the description of the product as 'norfloxacin 100 dt' which is name altogether different from monogram appearing in lp., and therefore, these are patent or proprietary medicaments classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10. he, further, submitted that the other product is also not classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 as the. lp. refers only ..... as confirmed by the commissioner (appeals) or are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the tariff.2. shri u. raja ram, learned dr, submitted that medicament in question are patent or proprietary medicament classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 as the same are not specified in note 2(ii) to chapter 30 of the central excise tariff, that the respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!


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