9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. The petitioners have challenged a demand notice dated 9.7.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise. Such demand notice was issued on the premise that the sales made by the petitioner of pharmaceutical products were through related persons. The State Excise Authorities therefore, invoked Explanation II to the Schedule under Section 3 of the Medi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Act,1944. 2. It is not necessary for us to enter into detailed facts since this issue in case of this very assessee is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. In a judgment in case of P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 2003 (153) ELT 14, it was held and observed as under : "14.We have indicated above the facts which make it cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is concerned, it has all along been contending that they were not related persons, so, it cannot be said to be guilty of not filling up the declaration in the prescribed proforma indicating related persons. The necessary facts had been brought to the notice of the authorities at different intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be taken notice of by the respondents for the purpose of holding that Messrs Pharma Chem Distributors was a related person. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, all the issues which were subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, had attained finality and as such it is not permissible for the department to thereafter reopen any of such issues against the petitioners herein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
