Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat tamil nadu Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.302 seconds)

Mar 10 2005 (TRI)

R. Stahl Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Mar-10-2005

..... (german company) hereby grants the licensee (appellant) an exclusive right for the manufacture, fabrication, assembly, sale and installation of the licensed products in the exclusive territory and to use the patents and trademarks registered by licensor." article 3 of the agreement laid down the licensor's obligations to provide technical information and services to the licensee. clause (a) of article 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2005 (TRI)

Rane Nastech Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Mar-10-2005

..... appellants by each of their technical collaborators. for instance, article 2.1 of one of the agreements reads thus: nsk hereby grants licensee (i) an exclusive license under the license patents and/or know-how to manufacture and assemble steering columns and assemble steering joints in the territory and (ii) non-exclusive license to use and sell licensed products in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2005 (TRI)

Dxn Herbal Mfg. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Dec-30-2005

Reported in : (2005)(191)ELT1110Tri(Chennai)

..... .40 - sterilised or pasteurised miltone - other-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2108.91 - not bearing a brand name--------------------------------------------------------------------------------30.03 medicaments (including veterinary medica- ments)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3003.10 - patent or proprietary medicaments, other than those medicaments which are exclusively-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3003.20 - medicaments (other than patent or proprie- tary) other than those which are exclusively-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3003.31 - manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3003.32 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2005 (TRI)

S. Duraiappa and ors. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Sep-13-2005

..... perusing the judgement passed in the criminal case. this judgement passed by a learned single judge was set aside by a division bench of the high court in a letters patent appeal filed by the respondents. the judgement of the division bench was taken in appeal to the supreme court. the apex court found that the appellant had been acquitted in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : (2005)(185)ELT324Tri(Chennai)

..... -7-2001. therefore the action of the lower authority in demanding interest for the provisional assessment ordered on 24-7-96 for the period prior to 1-7-2001 is patently illegal. order of the commissioner (appeals) is legal and proper. the grounds of appeal of the revenue have no substance. hence revenue's appeal is rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 2005 (TRI)

L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : May-25-2005

Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT423Tri(Chennai)

..... /s. komatsu asia & pacific pte ltd. were engaged in the business of sale of construction equipments in asia and pacific areas. their holding company viz. komatsu limited (japan) had the patented technology for manufacture of construction equipments such as hydraulic excavators. a joint venture company, to be known as "l & t komatsu ltd." was floated for the purpose of manufacture and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2005 (TRI)

India Cements Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Feb-17-2005

..... no.404-407/2004 dated 14.5.2004. ld. counsel for the appellants has also forcefully contended that the omission to remand the question to the original authority was a patent mistake.4. ld. sdr has referred to the relevant order of the original authority and has submitted that there is nothing in this order to indicate that the original authority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2005 (TRI)

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Indian Mri Diagnostic and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Decided on : Sep-26-2005

1. this appeal filed by the department is against an order of the commissioner of customs, against which the respondents had filed appeal no. c/1250/98 which was disposed of by this bench as per final order no. 763/2003, dated 5-8-2003 .2. in the impugned order, learned commissioner of customs had confiscated "whole body ct scanner" imported by the respondents, with option for redemption against payment of a fine of rs. 23,61,039/-. he, however, refrained from imposing any penalty on the party, "considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the party did give some free treatment to patients". in the aforesaid final order, we upheld the confiscation along with the quantum of redemption fine. the present appeal of the revenue is against the non-imposition of penalty by the commissioner.3. heard both sides. ld. sdr, reiterating the grounds of the appeal, submitted that, where it was found that the assessee had, by their post-importation conduct, rendered the goods liable to confiscation under section 111 of the customs act, they ought to have been penalised under section 112 of the act. the so-called "peculiar circumstances of the case" were not spelt out in the impugned order. that the party had given some free treatment to patients was not enough to exonerate them from penal liability under section 112. ld. counsel for the respondents endeavoured to justify the commissioner's decision as regards the proposal for imposing penalty.4. after giving careful .....

Tag this Judgment!


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