Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
8 cases · page 1 of 1
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise
The appellant, IFFCO, challenged the demand for service tax on payments made to HALDOR TOPSOE of Denmark. The dispute centered on whether the payment was for taxable consulting engineer services or merely for the licensing of 'know-how' and technical information. The Tribunal held that since the agreement was composite, the consideration must be bifurcated, with only the portion related to technical assistance being subject to service tax.
Jcb India Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax
Jcb India Ltd. appealed an order from the Commissioner of Service Tax demanding significant amounts of service tax and penalties, arguing that the transaction was a transfer of technical know-how, not a rendering of services. The Tribunal examined the agreement which granted a license under patents and know-how for manufacturing licensed products.
J. Prasad Polymers v.Commissioner Of Central Excise
The dispute involved whether J. Prasad Polymers, a small-scale manufacturer of shoes, could avail the benefit of SSI exemption when their products bore the name 'Sundar', which was claimed by M/s. Sada Ram & Sons (SRS). The Tribunal found that SRS failed to prove 'Sundar' was registered as a brand name under the Trade Marks Act, and since J. Prasad Polymers used various names alongside 'Sundar' on their own goods, they were allowed the exemption.
Eco Products India (P) Ltd. v.Commissioner Of C. Ex.
The dispute concerned whether Eco Products India (P) Ltd. was using a third party's brand name ('Aquarious-II') on water filters, making them ineligible for tax exemption. The department argued that Singer India Ltd. owned the brand based on a distributorship agreement. However, the Tribunal found that the contract terms indicated the petitioner owned the trademark and had the right to use it.
Wockherdt Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise
Wockherdt Ltd. appealed against an order classifying their product, Mannitol Injection B.P. 20% W/V, as a patent or proprietary medicine based on the design of its label. The company argued that simple labeling features like bars and color schemes do not automatically confer proprietary status unless they are registered trademarks or establish exclusive rights. The Tribunal sided with the appellant.
Festo Controls (P) Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise
The appeal challenged an order denying exemption benefits and imposing differential Central Excise Duty (CED) and penalty on Festo Controls for manufacturing products under the brand name 'FESTO'. The department alleged that 'FESTO' was the trade name of their collaborator, FESTO KG Germany, and its use constituted evasion. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order regarding the branding issue but remanded the case for de novo consideration concerning suppression and duty computation.
Essar Gujarat Ltd. v.Collector Of Customs (Preventive)
Essar Gujarat Ltd. imported a second-hand plant from West Germany to produce Sponge Iron. The Collector of Customs sought to enhance the declared transaction value by including various payments made to collaborators and patent holders, such as Midrex International for process rights. Essar challenged this addition before the Tribunal.
Collector Of C. Ex. v.Bengal Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals
The dispute concerned whether medicines manufactured by Bengal Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals, which bore the registered trade mark 'Bengal Chemicals' on their caps, should be classified as 'Patent or Proprietary Medicines' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that merely having a registered trademark is not sufficient; the mark must indicate a proprietary interest in the medicine, especially when the medicines are already specified in pharmacopoeia.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.