Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent, Central Excise ... on 8 September, 1976

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Urbane Industries

In the decision reported in Ramsay Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 789, the Tribunal followed the decision rendered inOgesh Industries cited supra and held that, 3. We see great force in the above submission. In the case of Ogesh Industries cited supra, it has been held that when a demand is raised by clubbing of the value of clearances of two units, and show cause notice has been issued only to one unit and not to the other, when the separate existence of both Units was projected, the notice is bad in law and the proceedings have been set aside by the Tribunal on this basis.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Itc Ltd. vs Cc on 16 April, 1998

This was approved by Division Bench of the same High Court in Union of India v.Indo French Pharmaceutical Company--. Reliance was placed on Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise Allahabad and Ors.-- for the Revenue and it was claimed that this decision was followed by the Tribunal and since it was based on correct interpretation of Explanation I the appellant was not entitled to any relief. It would be seen that in the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court it is not clear if the container bore the name of the medicine as well. What has been extracted in the judgment is that the medicine has been manufactured by M/s Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. As stated earlier if the container of the appellant would have stated that these were Astra Dextrose injections then it could be said that a relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer was established. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court is approved as correctly enunciating the scope of Explanation I. Since the appeal is being allowed on merits the question whether the Revenue was justified in reopening the case under proviso to Section 11A of the Act is rendered academic and is not necessary to be decided.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Poly Resins vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 22 August, 2003

5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire case records and perused the various case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Before we proceed to look into the merits of the case, it is necessary to decide the legal question as to whether the show cause notice has been validly issued to the dummy units viz. M/s. RC & Abbas Bhai & Co whose clearances have been sought to be clubbed with the clearances of the main unit viz. M/s, PR as the entire issue revolves round the validity of the show cause notices issued in this case. The learned Counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the judgments in the case of Dawn Fire-works Factory and Ors.. (supra), Ramsay Pharma (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (127) E.L.T. 789] (supra), SKN Gas Appliances v. CCE, New Delhi (supra) and CCE v. Sompura Ceramics (supra) to contend that mere marking of copy of the show cause notice without specifically asking the parties to show cause cannot be regarded as issue of show cause notice and that non issue of show cause notice to all the units whose clearances are proposed to be clubbed vitiates the proceedings. Examining this issue, that is as to whether a show cause notice was issued to the dummy units, we find that in the present case, a joint show cause notice bearing No. 12/98 dated 15-12-98 was addressed to M/s. PR and M/s. RC in which reference to the earlier show cause notice No. 11/98 was also made. Vide para 7 & 8 of SCN No. 12/98 both the units viz. M/s. PR & M/s. RC were specifically asked to produce evidence and also to submit their written reply. The said paras 7 & 8 are reproduced below :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 September, 1987

14. As against the above, the decision in Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. 1983 ELT 78 Allahabad is against the appellants. The Tribunal decision in 1983 ELT 2408 (Cegat) is also against the appellants. The Tribunal sitting in Delhi is thus faced with two High Court decisions - one of Madras High Court and the other of Allahabad High Court. While the Tribunal has equal respect for both the High Courts, it is difficult for it to follow simultaneously both the decisions with respect to the same product and only one decision would have to be preferred to the other. The question is which of the two High Court decisions should be preferred. The decision of Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. case 1983 ELT 78 Allahabad is more ,to the point with the case in hand. In this decision the Hon'ble High Court was concerned with a medicine whose name was, as in this case, contained in an Indian Pharmacopoeia. It had no brand name and the manufacturer had not got any trade mark registered under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 in respect of the medicine. The issue was whether the labels on the bottles of the medicines and the cardboard cartons in which the bottles were packed bore any mark such as a symbol, monogram, invented words or writing indicating a connection in the course of trade between those medicines and the person having either as proprietor or otherwise the right to use such name or mark. The main discussion of this issue is to be found in paras 8 to 12 of the decision. In the decision no monogram was involved but calligraphic letters as in the present case as seen from the label produced were involved. The High Court also referred to requirement of Rule 88 of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules. After referring to the arguments advanced by the parties the High Court recorded its finding as under :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 16 December, 1994

Reliance was placed on Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad & Ors. 1983 E.L.T. 78 (All.) for the Revenue and it was claimed that this decision was followed by the Tribunal and since it was based on correct interpretation of Explanation 1 the appellant was not entitled to any relief It would be seen that in the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court it is not clear if the container bore the name of the medicine as well. What has been extracted in the judgment is that the medicine has been manufactured by M/s Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. As stated earlier if the container of the appellant would have stated that these were Astra Dextrose injections then it could be said that a relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer was established. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court is approved as correctly enunciating the scope of Explanation 1. Since the appeal is being allowed on merits the question whether the Revenue was justified in reopening the case under proviso to Section 11 A of the Act is rendered academic and is not necessary to be decided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Ambi Ply Panels And Doors vs Cce & St Salem on 7 February, 2018

"6.?As regards the cross objections filed by the respondents, we find that the original authority had recorded in his order that notices were issued to partners of A.G. Company only for the purpose of asking them to explain why penalties should not be imposed on them under Rule 209A. We find that in view of the ratio of various judicial authorities, for instance, Ramsay Pharma (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (127) E.L.T. 789 (Tri-Del.)]
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Avr Swarnamahal Jewelry Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst & Ce -Commisioner Of ... on 20 June, 2024

Reliance was placed on Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad & Ors. - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 78 31 Excise Appeal No. 40359 of 2022 (All.) for the Revenue and it was claimed that this decision was followed by the Tribunal and since it was based on correct interpretation of Explanation I the appellant was not entitled to any relief. It would be seen that in the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court it is not clear if the container bore the name of the medicine as well. What has been extracted in the judgment is that the medicine has been manufactured by M/s. Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. As stated earlier if the container of the appellant would have stated that these were Astra Dextrose injections then it could be said that a relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer was established. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court is approved as correctly enunciating the scope of Explanation I. Since the appeal is being allowed on merits the question whether the Revenue was justified in reopening the case under proviso to Section 11A of the Act is rendered academic and is not necessary to be decided.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Raspha Labs on 13 March, 1996

Reliance was placed on "Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad and Ors. -1983 (12) E.L.T. 78 (All.) for the Revenue and it was claimed that this decision was followed by the Tribunal and since it was based on correct interpretation of Explanation I the appellant was not entitled to any relief. It would be seen that in the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court it is not clear if the container bore the name of the medicine as well. What has been extracted in the judgment is that the medicine has been manufactured by M/s. Ramsey Pharma Pvt. Ltd. As stated earlier if the container of the appellant would have stated that these were Astra Dextrose injections then it could be said that a relationship between the medicine and the manufacturer was established. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court is approved as correctly enunciating the scope of Explanation 1. Since the appeal is being allowed on merits the question whether the Revenue was justified in reopening the case under proviso to Section HA of the Act is rendered academic and is not necessary to be decided.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next