Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.107 seconds)

Mar 03 1999 (TRI)

Polyolefins Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)(85)LC149Tri(Mum.)bai

..... related person. its advertising the product is as much for its benefit as for that of the supplier.rendering brand information or any assistance in protecting in the matter of patent and proprietory rights does not establish a commercial relationship between the two parties. the fact that conditions of sale prescribed by the supplier had to be intimated to the buyer ..... and extent of advertising efforts should be determined by mutual agreement. it shall assist in protecting the chemexco's interest and that the manufacturers of the products with regard to patents, trademarks and other property rights and of any possible infringements of such rights and report any adverse conduct affecting the sales. the last condition 4.1 stipulates that chemexco will ..... an ordinary importer or a buyer.paragraph 4 of the declaration to be signed by the importer reads as follows: (b) collaborator entitled to the use of the trade mark, patent or design, the importer is required to strike out whatever is inapplicable. from the notice, it appears that the appellant had struck out the first two clauses, but not struck .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1999 (TRI)

Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-05-1999

Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT359Tri(Mum.)bai

..... waiver of deposit of duty of rs. 10.20 lakhs.duty has been demanded on the ground that the two products manufactured by the applicant, clohex and stolin are not patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under heading 30.03 of the tariff but preparations for oral or dental hygiene falling under heading 33.06.advocate for the applicant says that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1999 (TRI)

Varma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-02-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC241

..... by weight, with extracts of amla, brahmi, bhringaraj and sikakai. it was of the view that the product should be classified under heading 3003.10 of the tariff as a patent or proprietary medicine.notice was issued proposing reclassification of the product and demanding duty on the goods already cleared. the notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1999 (TRI)

Associated Laboratories Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-10-1999

Reported in : (1999)(83)LC878Tri(Mum.)bai

..... against the order-in-original no. 25/94 dated 21.2.1994 passed by the collector, central excise, bombay-1.2. briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture patent or proprietory medicine. they were claiming the benefit of notification no. 161/66 dated 8.10.1966 and notification no. 245/83 dated 13.9.1983 which provided a specified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1999 (TRI)

Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC524

..... . the question is whether gentamycine is entitled to exemption under notification 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. in the said notification it is specifically stated that the central government exempts patent or proprietary medicaments falling under sub-heading 3003.19 which contains one or more ingredients specified in the annexure thereto. in the annexure item 21 is gentamycine. in this case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1999 (TRI)

Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-09-1999

Reported in : (1999)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai

..... classifiable under heading 8409.00 of the tariff. therefore, since these bearings are not so classifiable, they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification.5. this reasoning is patently erroneous. if the intention of the notification was to provide exemption only to those parts of the engine classifiable under heading 8499.00, there would be no need for it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1999 (TRI)

Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-12-1999

Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC559

..... treaties such as (i) the pharmacological basis of therapeutics by goodman and gilman (ii) harry's cosmeticology referred to selsun as a drug. (j) it was being marketed as a patent or proprietary medicine through registered pharmacists who hold valid drug licence, and not by any dealer, like other shampoos. (k) abbott's literature referred to it as a drug and ..... only with chemists who have licence under the drugs and cosmetics act to sell the same. in that case they filed affidavit of chemists stating the drugs to be the patent and proprietary product and that the chemist require a valid drug licence to buy and sell the same. what are the reasons which normally hold a product within chapter 30 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1999 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borachem Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-16-1999

Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT781Tri(Mum.)bai

..... packs, one with the name advene 150 mg and 300 mg and other without that. the product bearing this name has been classified as a patent or proprietary medicament under heading 3003.20. he produces a copy of the classification list dated 1-3-1994 which confirms this contention. we therefore ..... in addition to its name contained the word "advene" 150 mg and 300 mg. this indicated the goods to be patent or proprietary medicine. now this was not an issue in the notice. the notice only alleges presence of the word magnus as against the classification claimed ..... judgment in astra pharmaceuticals (p) ltd. v. c.c.e., 1995 (6) rlt 445 (s.c.) held the product not to be a patent or proprietary medicament and allowed the appeal. this appeal by the department is from that order.2. the contention in the appeal is that the product ..... magnus. this name according to the department attracted the provisions of note 2(ii) of the chapter, and therefore the product was classifiable as patent or proprietary medicament. notices were issued accordingly proposing reclassification of the product under 3003.20 and demanding duty payable in addition as a result of ..... of ranitidine tablets 150 and 300 mg. it claimed classification of these products under heading 3003.20 of the tariff act, as medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoeopathic or bio-chemic systems. the department found that the product contained .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1999 (TRI)

Indian Toners and Developers Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)(85)LC806Tri(Mum.)bai

..... valuation branch, bombay ordered that the lumpsum payment for technical know-how was not required to be added to the value of plant and equipment as it was neither for patent or trade mark or for royalty. the department took up the matter in appeal before commissioner (appeals) and took the ground, among others, that the agreement contained technical know-how .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1999 (TRI)

PeThe Brake Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-04-1999

Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai

..... supreme court it would attract levy only if its container or packing carries any distinctive mark so as to establish relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer under the classification patent & proprietary medicine under ti-14e, and as further held that letters ap or word astra on the container was used to project the image of the manufacturer generally and it .....

Tag this Judgment!


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