Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 1999 Page 2 of about 21 results (0.040 seconds)

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!

Sep 16 1999 (TRI)

Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-16-1999

Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT710Tri(Mum.)bai

..... /s. albemarle corporation, earlier known as ethyl corporation is one of the leading producer of alpha olefin and supplier of the consignment. this company follows the procedure called albemarle process patented by it for manufacture of the other goods, whereas the other manufacturers follow different processes. this is clear from the condensed chemical dictionary by hawley's 4th edition, volume 17 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1999 (TRI)

Indian Toners and Developers Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)(85)LC806Tri(Mum.)bai

..... valuation branch, bombay ordered that the lumpsum payment for technical know-how was not required to be added to the value of plant and equipment as it was neither for patent or trade mark or for royalty. the department took up the matter in appeal before commissioner (appeals) and took the ground, among others, that the agreement contained technical know-how .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1999 (TRI)

Warren Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-14-1999

Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai

..... approximately on the ground that the three products manufactured and cleared by the applicant are classifiable under heading 3306.00 as preparations for oral and dental hygiene and are not patent or proprietary medicaments classifiable under heading 30.03.2. the advocate for the appellant explained that out of the three products remidin was not cleared at the relevant time, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1999 (TRI)

Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-05-1999

Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT359Tri(Mum.)bai

..... waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 10.20 lakhs.duty has been demanded on the ground that the two products manufactured by the applicant, clohex and stolin are not patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under heading 30.03 of the tariff but preparations for oral or dental hygiene falling under heading 33.06.advocate for the applicant says that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1999 (TRI)

Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-09-1999

Reported in : (1999)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai

..... classifiable under heading 8409.00 of the tariff. therefore, since these bearings are not so classifiable, they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification.5. this reasoning is patently erroneous. if the intention of the notification was to provide exemption only to those parts of the engine classifiable under heading 8499.00, there would be no need for it .....

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!

Feb 02 1999 (TRI)

Varma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-02-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC241

..... by weight, with extracts of amla, brahmi, bhringaraj and sikakai. it was of the view that the product should be classified under heading 3003.10 of the tariff as a patent or proprietary medicine.notice was issued proposing reclassification of the product and demanding duty on the goods already cleared. the notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1999 (TRI)

M.R. Ambedkar Dental College and Vs. C.C.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-23-1999

Reported in : (2000)LC238Tri(Mum.)bai

1. appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. the appellant is a dental college and hospital. it imported in 1991 25 dental chairs and 20 dental units totally valued at about rs 1.00 crore. duty free clearance was claimed in terms of notification 64/88.this notification ex equipments, apparatus and appliances used in a hospital as may be approved by the designated authorities of the government of india. among the conditions required to be fulfilled for availing of the exemption are that hospital must be certified to be run for providing free medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment to an average of 40% of outdoor patients and that 10% of the hospital beds are reserved for treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income less than rs. 500/- per month. condition 4 of table to the notification and the proviso occurring in the notification after condition 4 reads as follows: 4. any such hospital which is in the process of being established and in respect of which the said ministry of health and family welfare is of opinion- (i) that there is an appropriate programme for establishment of hospital, (ii) that there are sufficient funds and other resources required for such establishment of the hospital, (iii) that such hospital, would be in a position to start functioning within a period of two years and, (iv) that such hospital, when starts functioning would be relatable to a hospital specified in paragraphs 1, 2, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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