Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: trade and merchandise marks act 1958 repealed section 13 prohibition of registration of names of chemical elements Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai

Mar 19 2004 (TRI)

Qazi Shabbir Mustafa and Arif Haji Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(176)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner rejected the invoice value, determined the assessable value of the goods as Rs. 18,64,176/- and the duty to be paid on the goods as Rs. 10,73,051/-. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) & (m) and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 23,20,335/-. He further imposed penalties of Rs. 8,71,547/- on Shri Qazi Shabbir Mustafa under Section 114A/112(a) and an equal amount on Shri Arif Haji Gaffar under the same sections of the Customs Act.2. These appeals are filed by both the above mentioned persons.According to the Commissioner's findings, Shri Arif Haji Gaffer is the defacto importer who actually placed the order and was to gain financially from the import. The other person has only lent his name on receipt of some remuneration from Shri Arif. M/s. S.S.M. Traders is owned by Shri Kazi Shabbir Mustafa on record.3. The consignment described ...

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

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

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Id. DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Udhay Joshi, Id. Advocate, appearing for the respondents.2. As per facts on records, Core Healthcare Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In their declarations filed under Rule 173-B, the respondents have classified their products, 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 initiated proposing classification of the goods under Chapter 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty and as...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2003 (TRI)

Montage Chemicals Ltd., Bushal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We are concerned in these appeals the classification for the purpose of assessment of the product manufactured by Montage Chemical Ltd. (appeal 1950/96) and Bhushal Labs (1951/96) on job work for Merind Ltd. (1953/96). In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner, after determining the classification of these goods contrary to those claimed by the manufacturer, has imposed penalties not only on the manufacturer but also on Merind Ltd. under Rule 209A.2. Montage Chemical Ltd. and Bushal Labs, whom we refer to as assessees, were engaged in the manufacture of two categories of substance. The first were goods claimed as medicament in heading 3003 of the tariff. These are amprolium soluble powder USP and piperazine hexahydrate solution. The Commissioner has determined the classification of these products in sub heading 10 of heading 30003 as patent or proprietary medicament. The reason that he advances is that the labels, monogram or logo consisting of a letter 'M' in...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2003 (TRI)

Montage Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(89)ECC169

1. We are concerned in these appeals the classification for the purpose of assessment of the product manufactured by Montage Chemical Ltd. (1950/96) and Bushal Labs (1951/96) on job work for Merind Ltd. (1953/96). In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner, after determining the classification of these goods contrary to those claimed by the manufacturer, has imposed penalties not only on the manufacturer, but also on Merind Ltd. under Rule 209A.2. Montage Chemical Ltd. and Bushal Labs, whom we refer to as assessees, were engaged in the manufacture of two categories of substance. The first were goods claimed as medicament in Heading 3003 of the Tariff. These are amprolium soluble powder USP and piperazine hexahydrate solution. The Commissioner has determined the classification of these products in sub-heading 10 of Heading 3003 as patent or proprietary medicament. The reason that he advances is that the labels, monogram or logo consisting of a letter 'M' in capital...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 1987 (TRI)

Rajesh K. Bhansali Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1988)(38)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All these 4 appeals are against the same Order No. A/14-7-2/84 Pint dated 2.8.1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Bombay under which he confiscated 856.85 carats of Cut and Polished diamonds valued at Rs. 5,54,416.90 seized from the residence of Shri Mohd.Farooq U. Memon on 27.2.1984. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the seizure of 1000 tolas of gold from a German National Mr. Fischer at Sahar Airport on 5.2.1984. The Customs officers conducted investigations and found that the local contact of Mr.Fischer was with an Iranian National Mr. Col Charity Djabar who had stayed in Shelley's Hotel at Colaba. Investigations further revealed that from this hotel a telephone call had been made to telephone in 91043 which was installed at 55 Embassy Apartments, 291, Boman Behran Marg, Bombay. Further inquiries from the telephone department revealed that from this telephone number some overseas calls had been made in October, 1983. In view of these circumstanc...

Tag this Judgment!


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