Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat calcutta Page 1 of about 30 results (0.033 seconds)

Sep 19 1983 (TRI)

Smt. Prativa Rani Samanta Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (1984)(15)ELT482Tri(Kol.)kata

..... of the appellant's case whether the appellants had any locus standi or not. from the facts and the legal position discussed above, apparently it looks that there is a patent error in the passing of the order which goes to the root of the order.the learned advocate for the appellants had also filed a paper book for the disposal ..... of appeals by the said two persons and he had submitted that he has got no objection if the order is recalled. both the sides agree that there is a patent error in the order dated 7-4-83 of the tribunal, in appeal no. gd (t) cal-8/83." sd/- sd/-a.k. chakraborty, advocate a.k. saha, senior d ..... of its order dated 7-4-83 and this goes to the roots of the case and as this was neither pleaded by the appellant nor the respondent, there is patent mistake in the order dated 7-4-83 passed by this tribunal and as such the whole of the order should be cancelled and the matter should be re-heard .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1986 (TRI)

Exquisite Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (1987)(13)LC479Tri(Kol.)kata

..... it very difficult to- realise the penalty even if they succeed. it is also nobody's case that the same error apparent had crept in or that the order was patently bad in law and/or that a blatant mis-carriage of justice was involved. therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as a whole i consider that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1988 (TRI)

National Trading Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (1989)(21)LC106Tri(Kol.)kata

..... show cause notice dated 22/30-9-82, however, the department calls upon the appellants to show cause only in respect of 34.416 mt contained in 350 bundles. the patent contradiction between the number of bundles has not been clarified by the ld. adjudicator. the seizure memo and the seizure report, both dated 1-7-82, are irreconciliable with the ..... act. (16) on the face of the summary of "seizure in respect of iron rods" submitted by the department on 5th july 1988, the entire exercise pertaining to seizures is patently illegal. the said 'summary' admits that there was a so-called seizure on 11-5-1982 but the quantity seized in unknown. in the adjudication order dated 20-4-1983 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2002 (TRI)

East India Pharmaceutical Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2003)(154)ELT527Tri(Kol.)kata

..... record that it is being sold with or without an indication thereon that the packages are bearing trade name or mark etc. to call it medicament other than patent or proprietory 'or' a patent or proprietory medicament. therefore the classification arrived at by the lower authorities under 3003.20 cannot be upheld. similarly the classification under 3003.10 as availed and claimed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2006 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Filtronic

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... goods were tested for quality in the respondent's trading premises and, thereafter, packed and cleared to different customers from their premises in their own name and the specification, design, patent etc.were also supplied by the respondent and, therefore, the commissioner should have held that the respondent is the manufacturer of the said goods. ld. advocate submits that the above ..... charges. the goods were tested for quality in their trading premises and thereafter, packed and cleared to different customers from their premises in their own name and the specifications, designs, patent etc. were also supplied by the assessee. he submits that in view of the submissions in the appeal memo, the collector should have held that the respondents are the manufacturers .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2006 (TRI)

Sail, Durgapur Steel Plant Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... said act and/or the customs valuation rules, 1988. this also the deputy commissioner and the commissioner (appeals) failed to appreciate and/or take into consideration and thereby arrived at patently erroneous finding.8. in terms of rule 9(l)(b)(iv) of the valuation rules, 1988, in determining the transaction value the value apportioned as appropriate of, inter alia, engineering .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 2006 (TRI)

Vijay Traders and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... which clearly demonstrate the ex-facie unsustainability of the show cause notice and the proceedings conducted there under against the appellant and, others. it proceed on the basis of this patently erroneous allegation to purport to pass the said order & cannot be involved.6. in view of the findings, we would set aside the order of confiscation, penalty & allow the appeals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2006 (TRI)

Sony Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... appear from the show cause notice dated december 3, 2003 itself. a perusal of paragraph 6 of the show cause notice and the char 5 contained therein would demonstrate the patently incorrectness of such wild allegations made in the said order. k) the finding of the commissioner regarding rule 10a(2), is also untenable and unsustainable. the show cause notice had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2006 (TRI)

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2008)10STR515

..... of the commissioner (appeals) conspicuously glosses over the said binding instructions of the central board of excise customs while conveniently referring to another chapter and para thereof to support his patently erroneous finding.it is settled law that circulars and instructions issued by the central board of excise & customs are binding on the department unless they are contrary to the law ..... to the buyer of the goods and therefore even otherwise the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment. this finding of the commissioner (appeals) ex facie demonstrates patent non-application of mind and/or closed mind with which the said order has been passed as would be evident from the materials on record, but also from the order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2006 (TRI)

Pearl Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... observed that the "examination report", inter alia, proved beyond doubt that the goods in question were press blankets classifiable under chapter tariff heading 4016 of the customs tariff. this is patently incorrect. as aforesaid, neither the examination nor the re-examination nor the chartered engineer's reports establish that the said goods are, beyond doubt, press blankets.it is to be .....

Tag this Judgment!


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