Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.042 seconds)

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!

Oct 31 2002 (TRI)

Liva Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-31-2002

Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT719Tri(Mum.)bai

..... generally. it did not establish any relation ship between the mark and the medicine. when it is only a monogram to identify the manufacturer, the medicine cannot be treated as patent or proprietary.4. the facts in the present case are identical. apart from the above as mentioned earlier, the department itself has accepted the classification under chapter heading 3003.20 ..... ' on the packing indicated the name/house mark of the manufacturer as is made mandatory under the indian drug rules. according to the appellant it does not make the medicine patent or proprietary. on the other hand, the department took the view that the appellant's products are to be classified under heading 3003.10 since the packing of the ranitidine .....

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!

Sep 04 2002 (TRI)

Taxchem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-04-2002

Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai

..... departmental representative cites is of no help to him that the court held in that judgment that labelling is a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of patent or proprietary medicines and that labelling of vaccine amounted to manufacture as envisaged in section 2(f) of the act. we have already held that labelling is not involved in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2002 (TRI)

Softesule Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-19-2002

Reported in : (2002)LC103Tri(Mum.)bai

..... entities under dispute are understood as drugs pharmaceutical and their manufacture and trade is controlled by the drug control authorities. rule 124b of drugs & cosmetics rules, 1945 prescribe standards for patent and proprietary medicines containing vitamin. the entities are sold on prescription and are to be administered in prescribed dosages. vitamins are commonly understood to be medicaments required to be taken ..... 1. the appellants are manufacturer of various medicines and pharmaceutical preparations. the classification of certain products under chapter heading 3003.10 as patent and proprietary medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sidha, homeopathic or bio-chemic as approved, was challenged by issue of notices. the entities consist of mixtures .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2002 (TRI)

Dhananjay N. Khalwadekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-07-2002

..... he was posted on the date of landing of the silver. the explanation that he gave for the absence, that he had to go to kolhapur for medical purpose is patently false and contradicts the claim made in his appeal that he had gone to kolhapur for the naming ceremony of his son. if the latter were true, he would have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2002 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-04-2002

Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT664Tri(Mum.)bai

1. in the order impugned in this appeal by the commissioner, the commissioner (appeals) has held that the medicament manufactured by glenmark pharmaceuticals ltd., the respondent to the appeal, did not become a patent or proprietary medicament for the reason it bore on their labels the manufacturer's name in bold letters. this fact had been relied upon by the assistant collector to come to his conclusion that the goods were patent or proprietary medicaments.2. the commissioner (appeals) has relied upon the ratio of the judgement of the supreme court in astra pharmaceuticals (p) ltd. v. cce -1995 (75) e.l.t. 214, to come to his conclusion. the ground in the appeal that this ratio will not be applicable because "the circumstances in this case are different" is not supported by any explanation as to why they are different. in our view, the commissioner (appeals) has rightly relied upon the ratio of the supreme court's judgment, making a distinction between the house name of a manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product (which is what glen-mark is), and the brand name of a particular product made by such a manufacturer.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2002 (TRI)

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-08-2002

Reported in : (2002)(142)ELT657Tri(Mum.)bai

..... are imported is not a material aspect in determining whether a bill of entry is required to be filed. we have also observed that the claim made under ogl was patently wrong. in these circumstances, for rendering the goods liable for confiscation penalty is attracted by the importers. the question to be addressed is whether the quantum of penalty is commensurate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 2002 (TRI)

Andre Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-01-2002

Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

1. the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicaments. it had been permitted by the collector in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 173c, to clear its goods on the basis of value declared in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2002 (TRI)

V.V.F. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-29-2002

Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT457Tri(Mum.)bai

1. this is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of rs. 54,55,922/- confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicants herein for the reason that the product tetmosol soap manufactured and cleared by them during the period septembers, 1998 to september, 1999 falls for classification under chapter sub-heading 3401.19 of ceta, and not under chapter sub-heading 3401.11 as a medicated soap, as claimed by the applicants.2. on hearing both sides and noting that it is not in dispute that tetmosol soap is a medicated soap use for the treatment of the skin infection "scabies", and also noting that the method of usage is only at the time of bathing, we see prima facie force in the submission of the applicant that the more appropriate classification is under sub-heading 3401.11 as claimed by them. we also note that the commissioner has noted from the package/literature of tetmosol soap that 'it should not be used by patients who have previously reacted badly in any way to the product. rarely, a rash can occur after using "tetmosol", if this occurs stop using the product'. in this view of the matter we hold that a prima facie case for waiver has been made out and hence dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Tag this Judgment!


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