Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.033 seconds)

Dec 21 2004 (TRI)

C.C. (import) Vs. Titex India Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-21-2004

Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC10

..... drills taps, end mills etc. are imported from gunther co. gmbh, germany, under the collaboration agreement indian company is allowed to manufacture and sell products as per designs, trademarks and patents of their foreign collaborators. the technical know how and royalty are related to the imported goods because such imports are of no value unless they are processed / manufactured in accordance ..... (b) gunther gmbh (germany) ("ctt", both of whom were part of the ctt tools business of the sandvik group). under this agreement, ctt allowed the benefit of the know how, patents and trade mark rights in respect of the specified products, viz., high speed steel taps, solid carbide cutting tools, etc, which titex was manufacturing in india. titex were under no ..... no evidence produced to show that the said contention, which is purely a question of fact was false. i) it relates solely to the use of the know how and patent and trade marks rights granted thereunder in the production and manufacture in india of the said specified finished goods. ii) the royalty payable thereunder is only related to such local .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2004 (TRI)

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C Ex. and Cus.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-06-2004

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

..... , japan. agreements are dated 6-8-94, 9-3-98, 2-2-02 and 7-11-02. in terms of the agreements, khi provided technical know-how, technical assistance and patents for the above mentioned variety of motor cycle. show cause notice dated 29-7-2002 was issued to bal and khi proposing recovery of service tax under the provisions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2004 (TRI)

indo Gulf Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-31-2004

Reported in : (2005)(182)ELT77Tri(Mum.)bai

..... c.u. as licence fees for the right to use the patented process. seller s will receive payment for the equipment and the license fee from the importer, and will then transfer the entire amount of the license ..... to be incorporated into a continuous copper rod plant already existing in the country of importation. incorporated in the rolling mill equipment is technology involving a patented process which the rolling mill is intended to perform. the importer, in addition to the price of he equipment, has to be paid 15 million ..... the capital goods will include the payments made for the intangibles also since the only practicable use of the goods will be only when it incorporates the patented process. this submission is explained with an illustrative given in advisory opinion 4.12 of the technical committee on customs valuation, world customs organization. "1 ..... goods after importation, a payment of royalty or license fee must be made. for e.g. if an importer obtains the right to use a patented process, and pays a royalty for obtaining that right, if he then imports goods which may or may not be used in that process would not ..... provided. such licence shall include the right to make or have made process equipment for licensee's use in the plant and not covered by letters patent held by third parties or otherwise unavailable to licensor. this licence which refers to the plant only does not include the right to grant sub-licence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2004 (TRI)

Micropure Parentrals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-08-2004

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai

..... injections and tablets consisting of fixed dose combination of vitamins b1, b6 and b12. these goods are registered and made under the licence and control of drugs & cosmetics department as patent and proprietary medicaments and were claimed for classification under sr. no. 3003.10 of the tariff. however, proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice in the month of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2004 (TRI)

Shree Dhootapapeshwar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-23-2004

Reported in : (2005)(180)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

..... provides for manner of labelling. the trade notices issued under rule 53 of the central excise rules, 1944 provides for the stage at which rg-1 is to be entered. patent and proprietary medicines are to be entered in rg-1 when they are packed with appropriate label, trade mark, etc. for being sold in the market.8. the ld. counsel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2004 (TRI)

Relish Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-09-2004

Reported in : (2004)(178)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai

..... their factory and used them in the manufacture of dutiable final products.during 1996-97 and 1997-98, the appellants filed classification list declaring their products as medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) under sub-heading 3003.10 attracting central excise duty of 15% ad valorem for the purpose of exports and in sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of ..... duty for the purpose of home consumption. the department was of the view that medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) irrespective of their clearance either for export or for home consumption are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duly. show cause notice which came .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2004 (TRI)

Otis Elevators Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-13-2004

Reported in : (2004)(92)ECC521

..... , while considering the rectification of mistake under section 254(2) of the it act 1961 have inter alia held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. a decision on debatable point .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2004 (TRI)

Garden Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-21-2004

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

..... has been held by the hon'ble high court in the case of krishan madan v. deptt. of customs [2002 (140) e.l.t. 52 (del.)] that it is only patent and obvious mistake whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration, which can be rectified under the provisions of the customs act, 1962. it is only the amendment of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2004 (TRI)

Hindustan Biologicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-16-2004

Reported in : (2004)(173)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

..... also significant that the label does not contain the licence granted by food & drugs administration to manufacture medicines. it is quite possible that the appellants have licence to produce other patent or proprietary medicines. the appellants have not produced any evidence before us to say that even this product is licensed by the appropriate authorities, which means that the product can ..... 1. the issue relates to classification of a product called pentatone liquid. the appellants contend that the said goods fall under chapter heading 3003.10 as patent arid proprietary medicines attracting central excise duly at the rate of 15% ad valorem whereas the department proposes classification under chapter heading 2107.91 of the central excise tariff act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mather and Platt (i) Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-19-2004

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT318Tri(Mum.)bai

..... judgment, if any. rom by no means can be an appeal in disguise whereby an order, if it is not valid, is reheard and redecided. rom application lies only for patent mistakes. similarly, in bhupendra steel pvt. ltd. vs. cce, new delhi (2003 [161] elt 341 [t]) it is held that a decision on a debatable point of law or facts .....

Tag this Judgment!


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