Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.069 seconds)

Mar 04 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-04-2005

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT72TriDel

..... the commissioner (appeals).no prejudice has been said to have been caused to them by passing the final order of the tribunal. the impugned order does not suffer from any patent mistake of fact or law. the same cannot be recalled. the rom application is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2005 (TRI)

MartIn and Harris Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-17-2005

Reported in : (2005)(185)ELT421TriDel

..... excise) has confirmed the duty demand with penalty, as detailed therein, for the period 1998-99 to 2001-02, against them.2. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of patent or proprietary medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani etc. they had been paying duty @ 16% ad valorem by classifying their products under chapter sub-heading 3003 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2005 (TRI)

Thyrocare Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-27-2005

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT414TriDel

2. the service tax of rs. 39,087/- has been confirmed against the appellants through the impugned order by holding it to be covered under the 'business auxiliary services' in terms of clause (19) of section 65 of the act.3. the sole ground contended by the learned consultant is that, the appellants are in fact covered only under the 'franchise services' and the liability to pay the service tax is on their principal who has given them franchise for carrying out thyrocare technologies, as they collect the samples of the blood from the patients and after carrying out some procedural treatment, sent the same to the principal and they are also working under the name and style of thyrocare services. but, prima facie, this contention of the learned counsel has no merits. even under the alleged franchisee agreement, the appellants are rendering service to their principal by collecting blood samples and after carrying out some procedural treatment, transmitting the same to them.i do not find, prima facie, any illegality in the impugned order.therefore, the stay application of the appellants is dismissed. they are directed to make pre-deposit of the entire service tax and penalty amount within eight weeks from today. failing which, their appeal shall become liable to be dismissed without any further reference to them.

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 2005 (TRI)

Batra Hospital and Medical Vs. C.C.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-02-2005

Reported in : (2005)(187)ELT253TriDel

2. applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of rs. 1,32,37,001/- and penalty of rs. 5 lakhs. in this case the applicant made import of medical equipment and availed the benefit of notification no. 64/88-cus. dated 1-3-88. demand was confirmed and appellant failed to fulfill the condition of notification no.64/88-cus. as in the year 1995-96 the percentage of free patient is less than 40%.3. the contention of applicant is that machines were imported in the year 1992 and except for these years 1995-96 the percentage of treatment of free patients is more than 40%. in the year 1998 the percentage of free patient is 47% whereas in the year the percentage of patient is 51%.4. the contention of the revenue is that they have not fulfilled the condition of the notification as they are treating less than 40% of free patient. the revenue relied upon the decision in the case of commissioner of custom (import), mumbai v. jagdish cancer & research centre reported in 2001 (132) e.l.t. 257 (s.c.) where the hon'ble supreme court held that where the deficiency in the percentage of free treatment to patient can be made in subsequent period is rejected by the hon'ble supreme court. the contention of revenue is that applicant had admitted that the treatment in the year 1995-96, the percentage of treatment of free patient is less than 40%. therefore, the benefit of notification was rightly denied.5. we find that for the years 1994 & 97 and 1998-99 the applicant treated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Satyapal Khosla Charitable

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-01-2005

1. the issue involved in this appeal filed by the revenue is whether the demand of customs duty is hit by time limit specified under section 28 of the customs act.2. when the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, m/s. satyapal khosla charitable memorial trust inspite of notice having been received by them as per the postal acknowledgement.we, therefore, heard shri u raja ram, learned departmental representative and perused the records.3. in this case the respondents had imported audio meter in september, 1991 and claimed exemption from payment of duty under notification no.64/88-cus. the additional commissioner under order-in-original no.49/2002 dated 31.5.02 confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of rs.25,000/- and confirmed the customs duty and also imposed a penalty of rs.10,000/- on the ground that the respondents had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in notification no.64/88 regarding providing free treatment to on an average 40% of outdoor patients and free treatment to poor in door patients and reserve 10% beds for this purpose. the commissioner (appeals), however, under the impugned order has set aside the demand as time barred, as the show cause notice was issued on 16.9.2000 in respect of goods imported in 1991. learned departmental representative has further submitted that it has been held by the supreme court in the case of mediwell hospital and health care centre vs. union of india (1997 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2005 (TRI)

Noida Medicare Centre Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-18-2005

Reported in : (2005)(187)ELT256TriDel

1. the dispute is, whether the appellants satisfy the conditions stipulated in notification no. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988 with regard to free treatment of patients. the notification requires that at least 40% of their outdoor patients should get free treatment. the duty demand has been confirmed under the present order upon a finding that for the years 1991 to 1999, the appellants registered an average of only 39% for free treatment. the learned counsel has pointed out that in certain years the appellants had also treated more than 40% free patients.2. it is not clear from the notification, as to whether the percentage is to be worked out on an annual basis or on overall basis. if latter is the case, the years subsequent to 1999 would also be relevant. in any case, the appellants are very close to the percentage stipulated in the above said notification. under these circumstances, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and recovery stayed.

Tag this Judgment!


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