Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.087 seconds)

May 17 2005 (TRI)

Arco Whitey Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

..... purchased the manufacturing unit as a 'going concern' with all its assets, including the goodwill, right to use the trade mark and all technical drawing and designs and know-how, patents, licenses etc. in consideration of rs. 107.00 lakhs. as such, it is their contention that with effect from 28.03.94, the trade mark belongs to them and has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. P and B Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-23-2005

Reported in : (2006)(105)ECC29

..... ) of vitamin b1, b6 and b12 under brand name aneudox-12 and classified the same under chapter sub-heading 3003.00 of the first schedule to the ceta, 1985 as patent of propriety of medicaments in their classification declaration. whereas the department wanted the classification under chapter sub-heading 2936.00 as the appellants were mis-declared the same as medicaments .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mecnair Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-18-2005

..... has not given any finding in regard to liability of the goods to confiscation but determined the quantum of penalty on the applicants. this according to the applicants is a patent error on the part of the tribunal. it is also submitted that when the tribunal remanded the matter it should have directed the lower authority to re-determine the penalty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (TRI)

Micropure Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT23Tri(Mum.)bai

..... natural or reproduced by synthesis (including natural concentrates) derivatives thereof used primarily as vitamins and intermixtures thereof, whether or not in any solvent while the latter covers medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoeopathic or biochemic systems. the moot point thus is whether the vitamin b complex tablets merit classification ..... as vitamins under sub-heading 2936.00 or as medicaments other than patent or proprietary ones. at first blush it may appear that the specific entry "vitamin" will apply and not the general one "medicaments". but the position is not so. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

..... to identify the manufacturer and not the product and is therefore in the nature of a house mark and that will not render the ayurvedic medicine in question as a patent or proprietary medicament.2. we have heard the learned sdr and perused the records; none appeals for the respondents in spite of notice.3. the adjudicating authority has examined the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai

..... submission, we cannot accept the proposition that the intermediate strepto penicillin is not being used for two different products viz. branded fortified penicillin and benzyl penicillin which are classified as patent and proprietary medicaments and non-branded generic fortified penicillin & benzyl penicillin exported classified differently. therefore, the grounds taken on an assumption of removal of labels/or denial of 8% route .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-12-2005

Reported in : (2004)(178)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

..... following astra pharmaceutical pvt. ltd., it was held that where the goods are being manufactured under the names mentioned in pharmacopoeia, they cannot be held to be classifiable as patent or proprietary medicine.bdh industries ltd., v.commissioner of central excise, mumbai-v wherein the assessee claimed the goods to be classifiable under heading 3003.10 and claimed modvat credit ..... by the respondents in which they could claim proprietary rights, the same have to be held as not patent or proprietary medicaments. similarly, in the case of liva pharma ltd. v. commissioner of central excise, aurangabad , it was noticed that the name ranitidine appears in the pharmacopoeia ..... names under which the product is described having been given in the pharmacopoeia, mentioning of the name reflecting the connection with the manufacturer will not make the medicine as patent or proprietary. inasmuch as in the present case also the medicines are being sold under the product's name as described in pharmacopoeia and were not special preparation made ..... cleared for home consumption under heading 3003.20 chargeable to nil rate of duty.however, in respect of the products being exported by them, the classification has been claimed as patent and proprietary medicines falling under heading 3003.10. accordingly, the respondents cleared the said goods on payment of duty after availing the benefit of modvat credit.3. proceedings were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2005 (TRI)

Oboi Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-09-2005

..... are that the appellant manufactures two medicaments, viz. obroquin injection 30 ml and cloroquine phosphate injection 30 ml. the appellant filed a classification list claiming classification of the goods as patent and proprietary medicines under heading 3003.10 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act. the appellant is mainly exporting the goods. the department's contention is that the ..... .10, the commissioner classified them under heading 3003.20.4. we have perused the labels filed along with the appeal papers and find that in one of the products the patented name "obroquin" is conspicuously mentioned on the label. in so far as the other product in question is concerned, it does not carry any house name. the commissioner's contention .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2005 (TRI)

Manmohan Gupta and Actis Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-07-2005

Reported in : (2005)(191)ELT907Tri(Mum.)bai

..... " submitted by the respondent, a purported document which cannot be relied upon. it is evident that to hide relevant and material facts which would have enabled the appellant to demonstrate patent flaws and/or irrelevancy of the purported us report this wrongful and illegal methodology has been adopted by the respondent customs authorities in the present case, thus vitiating the entire ..... price trend in respect of it products which went down with passage of time. vi) the us customs had reported that m/s performa was started in 1998 which was patently wrong as the annexure a and annexure b of the indian customs which proposed to levy differential customs duty gave instances of supplies made by the m/s performa are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (TRI)

D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

2. the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that in his written submission filed before the tribunal he has specifically mentioned that the issued involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the appellant's own cases of commissioner of customs, mumbai-ii v. d.c. polyesters pvt. ltd. reported in 2004 (176) e.l.t. 471 (tri. - mumbai) and commissioner of central excise, mumbai-iii v. d.c. polyester pvt. ltd. . while passing the order these two decisions have not been considered and as such the order suffers from the patent error and as such he submitted that the rom application may be allowed.3. the ld. jdr has no serious objection in allowing the rom application.4. i, therefore, allow the rom application. the case is fixed for regular hearing on 22-7-05.

Tag this Judgment!


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