9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 17 - HC - Central ExciseRelated party transaction - transaction value - Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act,1944 - Held that - same issue decided in the assessee case P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise 2003 (2) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the same issue again raised in the assessee case P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. V/s. Union of India 2011 (5) TMI 694 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The same issue therefore, cannot be the subject matter of yet another litigation. In the result, the petition is allowed - petitioner does not press for the challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant provision - rule made absolute.
Issues:
Challenge to demand notice based on sales to related persons under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. Analysis: The petitioners contested a demand notice issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, alleging that sales of pharmaceutical products were made to related persons. The State Excise Authorities applied Explanation II to the Act, invoking Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act,1944 for valuation in case of related persons. The excise duty would be levied on the normal price of goods if the buyer is not a related person. The issue of related persons was crucial in determining the transaction value. The court referred to a previous judgment involving the same assessee where it was established that the question of related persons had been thoroughly examined by the Excise authorities at various stages. The assessee had consistently maintained that the buyer was not a related person, and the authorities had previously accepted this stance. Therefore, there was no suppression of fact regarding the related person status, and invoking the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act for an extended demand period was unwarranted. Subsequently, the revenue authorities revisited the related person issue, but the Division Bench of the Court, in another case involving the same assessee, emphasized that once a Tribunal order was set aside by the Supreme Court, it ceased to exist in the eyes of the law. The issues settled by the Supreme Court could not be reopened by the department. Relying on the Tribunal order after it was set aside was deemed impermissible, as the issues had attained finality through the Supreme Court's decision. Given the previous judgments and the finality of the related person issue, the court concluded that the matter could not be subjected to further litigation. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the demand notice from 9.7.2007 was set aside with immediate effect. The petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant provision was not pursued, and the rule was made absolute.
|
