Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.036 seconds)

Aug 20 2002 (TRI)

Mds Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-20-2002

Reported in : (2002)LC608Tri(Mum.)bai

..... this contention of the departmental representative. clause 1.2 of the agreement defines "know-how" to mean and include "all inventions processes, patents, engineering and manufacturing skills and other technical information, whether patented or unpatented and whether or not patentable which are freely owned by ec (italian company) on the date hereof and which is necessary in the reasonable opinion of ec to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2002 (TRI)

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-18-2002

Reported in : (2003)(154)ELT729Tri(Mum.)bai

..... chloroquine sul hate; rimaquin hos hate; yrimethamine; me- acrime hydrochloride; chloroquine di hos hate; doxycycline, its salts and esters; erythromycin, its salts and esters, mebendazole medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ay-urvedic, unani, siddha, homoeo-pathic or bio-chemic systems.medicaments, including those used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoepathic ..... not elsewhere specified or in-cluded.antisera; vaccines, toxins, cul-tures of micro-organisms (includ-ing ferments but excluding yeasts) and similar products.medicaments (including veteri-nary medicaments) -patent or proprietary medica-ments, other than those medica-ments which are exclusively ay-urvedic, unani, siddha, homoeo-pathic or bio-chemic : - quinine and its salts, totaquina and cinchona ..... to get around this specific explanatory note/stipulated end user by holding that the uas was an intermediate article which could be classified under chapter 42. this is patently incorrect. the hsn explanatory note to heading 5.04 establishes that the product classifiable thereunder (i.e. processed but unsterilized catgut) is used for the manufacture of ..... surgical suture is the finished article of ready use (made demo uas) and is classifiable under chapter heading no. 3005.90. (e) the collector has committed a patent error in holding that the doctrine of noscitur a socii is not applicable to the ceta. it has repeatedly been applied in the context of the ceta in similar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2002 (TRI)

Dhananjay N. Khalwadekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-07-2002

..... he was posted on the date of landing of the silver. the explanation that he gave for the absence, that he had to go to kolhapur for medical purpose is patently false and contradicts the claim made in his appeal that he had gone to kolhapur for the naming ceremony of his son. if the latter were true, he would have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2002 (TRI)

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-08-2002

Reported in : (2002)(142)ELT657Tri(Mum.)bai

..... are imported is not a material aspect in determining whether a bill of entry is required to be filed. we have also observed that the claim made under ogl was patently wrong. in these circumstances, for rendering the goods liable for confiscation penalty is attracted by the importers. the question to be addressed is whether the quantum of penalty is commensurate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2002 (TRI)

Liva Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-31-2002

Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT719Tri(Mum.)bai

..... generally. it did not establish any relation ship between the mark and the medicine. when it is only a monogram to identify the manufacturer, the medicine cannot be treated as patent or proprietary.4. the facts in the present case are identical. apart from the above as mentioned earlier, the department itself has accepted the classification under chapter heading 3003.20 ..... ' on the packing indicated the name/house mark of the manufacturer as is made mandatory under the indian drug rules. according to the appellant it does not make the medicine patent or proprietary. on the other hand, the department took the view that the appellant's products are to be classified under heading 3003.10 since the packing of the ranitidine .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2002 (TRI)

Taxchem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-04-2002

Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai

..... departmental representative cites is of no help to him that the court held in that judgment that labelling is a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of patent or proprietary medicines and that labelling of vaccine amounted to manufacture as envisaged in section 2(f) of the act. we have already held that labelling is not involved in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2002 (TRI)

Softesule Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-19-2002

Reported in : (2002)LC103Tri(Mum.)bai

..... entities under dispute are understood as drugs pharmaceutical and their manufacture and trade is controlled by the drug control authorities. rule 124b of drugs & cosmetics rules, 1945 prescribe standards for patent and proprietary medicines containing vitamin. the entities are sold on prescription and are to be administered in prescribed dosages. vitamins are commonly understood to be medicaments required to be taken ..... 1. the appellants are manufacturer of various medicines and pharmaceutical preparations. the classification of certain products under chapter heading 3003.10 as patent and proprietary medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sidha, homeopathic or bio-chemic as approved, was challenged by issue of notices. the entities consist of mixtures .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 2002 (TRI)

Andre Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-01-2002

Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

1. the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicaments. it had been permitted by the collector in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 173c, to clear its goods on the basis of value declared in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2002 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-04-2002

Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT664Tri(Mum.)bai

1. in the order impugned in this appeal by the commissioner, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the medicament manufactured by glenmark pharmaceuticals ltd., the respondent to the appeal, did not become a patent or proprietary medicament for the reason it bore on their labels the manufacturer's name in bold letters. this fact had been relied upon by the assistant collector to come to his conclusion that the goods were patent or proprietary medicaments.2. the commissioner (appeals) has relied upon the ratio of the judgement of the supreme court in astra pharmaceuticals (p) ltd. v. cce -1995 (75) e.l.t. 214, to come to his conclusion. the ground in the appeal that this ratio will not be applicable because "the circumstances in this case are different" is not supported by any explanation as to why they are different. in our view, the commissioner (appeals) has rightly relied upon the ratio of the supreme court's judgment, making a distinction between the house name of a manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product (which is what glen-mark is), and the brand name of a particular product made by such a manufacturer.

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2002 (TRI)

Gautam Diagnostic Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-19-2002

1. this appeal is against the order passed by the commissioner of customs, mumbai. the commissioner passed his order in order to comply with the direction issued by the tribunal in its order passed on 24.4.2001. the tribunal by that order disposed of an appeal filed by the same appellant against the order of the commissioner adjudicating on a notice issued to gautam diagnostic centre. the notice proposed recovery of duty on a treadmill system with accessories imported by the appellant in 1988 and cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption contained in notification 64/88. the notice alleged that the benefit of the exemption contained in notification was not available for three reasons - that the importer did not have facilities for housing indoor patients; a certificate from the director general of medical services evidencing installation of the imported equipment had not been produced; and the condition contained in the notification requiring free treatment of not less than 40% of outpatients had not been complied with.2. the commissioner had found contravention on all three grounds, confirmed the demand and imposed penalty.3. the tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant placed before him that the absence of facilities for housing and treatment of indoor patients did not disentitle from claiming the benefit of the exemption, relying upon the ratio of the decision of the tribunal in surlux diagnostic ltd. v. cce 1992 (71) 569 followed by many other .....

Tag this Judgment!


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