Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.068 seconds)

Mar 03 1999 (TRI)

Polyolefins Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)(85)LC149Tri(Mum.)bai

..... related person. its advertising the product is as much for its benefit as for that of the supplier.rendering brand information or any assistance in protecting in the matter of patent and proprietory rights does not establish a commercial relationship between the two parties. the fact that conditions of sale prescribed by the supplier had to be intimated to the buyer ..... and extent of advertising efforts should be determined by mutual agreement. it shall assist in protecting the chemexco's interest and that the manufacturers of the products with regard to patents, trademarks and other property rights and of any possible infringements of such rights and report any adverse conduct affecting the sales. the last condition 4.1 stipulates that chemexco will ..... an ordinary importer or a buyer.paragraph 4 of the declaration to be signed by the importer reads as follows: (b) collaborator entitled to the use of the trade mark, patent or design, the importer is required to strike out whatever is inapplicable. from the notice, it appears that the appellant had struck out the first two clauses, but not struck .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1999 (TRI)

Mistry Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-26-1999

Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai

..... by the appellant. the invoking of the extended period of 5 years under section 11a of central excise act is not proper and correct. any claim beyond 6 months is patently time barred. there are no grounds to impose penalty. it is not shown that the appellants have acted contemptuously or were in deliberate defiance of the law or disregard of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1999 (TRI)

Press Metal Corporation Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-30-1999

Reported in : (2000)(89)LC146Tri(Mum.)bai

..... .16 relates to "angles, shapes & sections" which the goods in question are whereas tariff heading 87.08 relates to 'other' parts and accessories of motor-vehicle. the expression "other" is patently an expression of general nature without any particularisation or specificity. further, as pointed out earlier, 'panels' cleared as such cannot be used as 'parts' of motor-vehicles.these have to ..... according to the specific design of each motor vehicle. the users had made known to the appellant therein that they could not adopt the design of others, as they are patented. mere fact that the-panels required to be painted and some fitment work was required to be done did not make the panel a "cold rolled formed section". learned sdr .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1999 (TRI)

Plastipeel Chemicals and Vs. C.C.E.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-1999

Reported in : (2000)LC395Tri(Mum.)bai

..... not declared anti rust chemicals in their rusguard series, contained more than 70% of the mineral oil. the finding of suppression of facts and malafides in the impugned order is patently wrong. the very fact that the product containing more than 70% of the mineral oil is not sufficient to exclude from the heading 34.03.the previously approved classification is ..... the reports mentioned that several of the product contained more than 70% by weight of mineral oils, holding the applicant guilty of suppression of facts is illogical. the reasoning is patently wrong and incomprehensible. on the question of time bar the impugned order has to be set aside. the observation in para 22 in the said order is quite contrary to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1999 (TRI)

PeThe Brake Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-04-1999

Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai

..... supreme court it would attract levy only if its container or packing carries any distinctive mark so as to establish relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer under the classification patent & proprietary medicine under ti-14e, and as further held that letters ap or word astra on the container was used to project the image of the manufacturer generally and it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1999 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borachem Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-16-1999

Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT781Tri(Mum.)bai

..... packs, one with the name advene 150 mg and 300 mg and other without that. the product bearing this name has been classified as a patent or proprietary medicament under heading 3003.20. he produces a copy of the classification list dated 1-3-1994 which confirms this contention. we therefore ..... in addition to its name contained the word "advene" 150 mg and 300 mg. this indicated the goods to be patent or proprietary medicine. now this was not an issue in the notice. the notice only alleges presence of the word magnus as against the classification claimed ..... judgment in astra pharmaceuticals (p) ltd. v. c.c.e., 1995 (6) rlt 445 (s.c.) held the product not to be a patent or proprietary medicament and allowed the appeal. this appeal by the department is from that order.2. the contention in the appeal is that the product ..... magnus. this name according to the department attracted the provisions of note 2(ii) of the chapter, and therefore the product was classifiable as patent or proprietary medicament. notices were issued accordingly proposing reclassification of the product under 3003.20 and demanding duty payable in addition as a result of ..... of ranitidine tablets 150 and 300 mg. it claimed classification of these products under heading 3003.20 of the tariff act, as medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoeopathic or bio-chemic systems. the department found that the product contained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1999 (TRI)

Associated Laboratories Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-10-1999

Reported in : (1999)(83)LC878Tri(Mum.)bai

..... against the order-in-original no. 25/94 dated 21.2.1994 passed by the collector, central excise, bombay-1.2. briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture patent or proprietory medicine. they were claiming the benefit of notification no. 161/66 dated 8.10.1966 and notification no. 245/83 dated 13.9.1983 which provided a specified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1999 (TRI)

Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-12-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC559

..... treaties such as (i) the pharmacological basis of therapeutics by goodman and gilman (ii) harry's cosmeticology referred to selsun as a drug. (j) it was being marketed as a patent or proprietary medicine through registered pharmacists who hold valid drug licence, and not by any dealer, like other shampoos. (k) abbott's literature referred to it as a drug and ..... only with chemists who have licence under the drugs and cosmetics act to sell the same. in that case they filed affidavit of chemists stating the drugs to be the patent and proprietary product and that the chemist require a valid drug licence to buy and sell the same. what are the reasons which normally hold a product within chapter 30 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1999 (TRI)

Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC524

..... . the question is whether gentamycine is entitled to exemption under notification 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. in the said notification it is specifically stated that the central government exempts patent or proprietary medicaments falling under sub-heading 3003.19 which contains one or more ingredients specified in the annexure thereto. in the annexure item 21 is gentamycine. in this case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1999 (TRI)

PeThe Brake Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-14-1999

Reported in : (2000)LC74Tri(Mum.)bai

..... . the principles of natural justice were not observed by the commissioner in passing the impugned order as mentioned in the stay application and the appeal memorandum with serious irregularities and patent errors committed in passing the stay order. there is a breach of statutory provisions enjoining on the commissioner to give effective healing in the course of the adjudicating proceedings. the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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