Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 46 results (0.080 seconds)

Jan 23 2002 (TRI)

Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC544

..... interpretative note to rule 9(1)(c) provides that the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include, among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2002 (TRI)

Ferodo India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)(82)ECC584

..... technical assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators. without the licence and know how the goods can not be manufactured in india. without patent rights from the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the trade mark of the foreign collaborator. for ..... towards technical know how fees as well as the royalty for use of the licence for the sake of production and to use the trademark, patent, become related to the imported goods in question and also become conditions of sale for the import of the said goods. this view is ..... agreement, no transfer of know how, no payment for this transfer of know how fees and no payment of royalty and therefore, no use of patent, trademark etc. then there would have been no occasion to start the said know how related production and therefore, no question of import of capital ..... assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators, without the licence and know how the goods cannot be manufactured in india. further, without patent rights from the collaborators, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian ..... 9(1)(c) 1. the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2002 (TRI)

Kwality Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-08-2002

Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT296TriDel

..... ), all the properties, assets, work-in-progress, current assets, investments, powers, authorities, allotments, approvals and consents, licences, registrations, contracts, engagements, arrangements, rights, titles, interests, benefits and advantages of whatever nature, patents, trade marks, trade names, etc., stood vested in the transferee company i.e.appellant. all debts, liabilities, duties and obligations as per clause (f) of the scheme sanctioned by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Apr 12 2002 (TRI)

Ultra Filter (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Decided on : Apr-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT362Tri(Bang.)

..... they had cleared 'filters' with the brand name of m/s ultra filter gmbh, germany by suppressing the fact of having entered into technical collaboration with the german company, using patents and affixing the brand name of the collaborator company, who were not eligible for the exemption of notification no, 175/86. this activity was alleged to be with an intention .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2002 (TRI)

ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

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

Decided on : Jul-16-2002

Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT499Tri(Chennai)

..... the same, there is no other area of dispute. prototype can be purchased across the counter whereas the standard/package type is delivered in ckd condition after having affixed the patent registration brand indion along with test certificate to the customer for guarantee purposes and such guarantee is for the entire equipment (water treatment plant). when the customer purchases the package ..... difference, is only in the nature of delivery of plant. the 'prototype' can be purchased across the counters whereas the package type is given in (ckd) condition after affixing the patent and registration brand viz. 'indion' along with the test certificates to the customer for guarantee purposes and such guarantee is for the entire equipment viz. water treatment plant. (5) when ..... ). the appellants submit that the order confirming huge penalty of rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs is ex facie bad in law, especially when there are palpable contradictions in the order, patent errors, mis-calculations in figures non-examination and non-appreciation of contention and evidence on records. the order is therefore liable to be set aside. the appellant state that findings .....

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!

Jan 18 2002 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai Vs. Titanium Equipment and Anode Mfg.

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

Decided on : Jan-18-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC167

..... order itself. the report clearly indicated that the item is not marketable in view of short shelf life. the commissioner noting the opinion of the cecri, who were the patent holders of the product before transferring the technology to the appellants, found the item to have been dissolved into iso propyl alcohol/butanol and it is called chelate. he has ..... this order dated 18-12-98 drawn prima facie wrong inference from the opinion of cecri. commissioner has observed in his findings that according to the cecri opinion who were patent holders for the product, before transferring the technology to team, the chelate preparation consists of dissolving proprietary metal chlorides like ruthenium/indium in isopropyl alcohol/butanol. the chloride in ..... cost, before deciding the case, market enquiries should be conducted to find out whether the product is marketable or not. i find that according to the cecri opinion who were patent holders for this product, before transferring the technology to team, the chelate preparation consists of dissolving of proprietary metal chlorides like ruthenium/iridium in iso propyl alcohol/butanol. the ..... takes place and the chemicals retain their original character in the solution and therefore no new product emerges as a result of manufacture; the certificate from cecri who originally patented the chelate compound and transferred the technology to them clearly states that "it is only a process of mixing and dilution and this does not change the character of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2002 (TRI)

Saru International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-2002

Reported in : (2002)(142)ELT422TriDel

..... finish, waxing, blacking, smoothing (glazing), satin finishing, printing etc.leather may be coated or covered with a varnish or lacquer or with a pre-formed sheet of plastics (patent leaner or patent laminated leather) or may be coated with metal powder or metal leaf (metallised leather).learned dr submits that the above two explanations if read together will indicate that the ..... be taken. no show cause notice was issued as it was waived by the importers.3. the additional commissioner of customs confiscated the goods holding that the goods were 'patent leather'; that patent leather is one stage ahead of finished leather. the goods were confiscated and penalty was also imposed. against this order, the importers filed an appeal before the commissioner ..... ahead of finished leather but they have not produced any evidence in support of this contention. he submits that the glossary of terms as indicated above includes fancy leather and patent leather. he submits that whereas the contention of the appellants is supported by the above evidence, the department has not produced on record any evidence in support of their ..... notfn. no. 17/2001, dated 1-3-2001 (serial no. 136) was claimed.customs authorities subjected the said goods to examination. it was observed that the imported goods were 'patent leather'. customs authorities were of the view that the goods were not finished leather as declared by the importer. accordingly, a case of misdeclaration was booked. the importers were informed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2002 (TRI)

Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

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

Decided on : Oct-25-2002

Reported in : (2003)(85)ECC349

..... on 10.7.93 itself and the department had full information thereof and therefore the show cause notice issued after five years on 19.1.99 is without jurisdiction and patently not sustainable. the tribunal expressed its view prima facie that commissioner had not expressed his view on the time bar and had not given a speaking order and hence he .....

Tag this Judgment!


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