Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Related 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssued 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 Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act,1955 (for short 'the Act'). By virtue of which in case of question of valuation, the same would be determined in accordance with the provis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e would be substituted by the said special mechanism contained in Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt 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 i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequently that it was a related person, the same fact could not be treated as a suppression of fact on the part of the assessee so as to saddle with the liability of duty for the larger period by invoking proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. So far as 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 in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version