PROCTOR AND GAMBLE (INDIA) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 29.9.2005 of Commissioner Bhopal.

(2.) HEARD both sides extensively and perused the records.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant submits that they received earlier another show cause notice dated 3.7.1998 which also alleged that the appellant and PGHP were related persons and proposed demand of duty for the period 1.4.1994 to June, 1996 though not on the resale price of PGHP and the Commissioner, vide order dated 9.2.91 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 5,66,99,389/ -. He submits that they filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/822 -823/ West Zonal Bench dated 24.6.2005, set aside the said order of the Commissioner confirming demand of Rs. 5,66,99,389/ - and allowed the appeal both on merits and on time bar. He submits that since the Tribunal has already held that the appellant and PGHP are not related persons and set aside the demand confirmed in pursuance of notice dated 3.7.1998, the department was not entitled to raise the same issue on the same facts and hold the appellant and PGHP as related persons and therefore, the present demand is also not sustainable. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P & B Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v. CCE reported in, 2003 (153) ELT 14 (SC) in respect of the said submission. He also submits that in view of their furnishing relevant details from time to time including the copy of the agreement between PGIL and PGHP (which was given to the Department on 2.5.1994) the question of invoking extended time limit for the purpose of demand of duty and holding that there was suppression of facts and imposing penalty are not justified.