LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-220

PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 27, 2012
PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LTD. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(2.) The matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication as per directions issued by the Apex Court. The (sic)tention of the petitioner is that after the order passed by the Tribunal but before the order passed by the Apex Court, various show cause notices were issued to the petitioner by the Excise Department directing the petitioner to show cause why the tax as shown in the notices may be imposed. These notices are under challenge in this appeal on the ground that during period between 27-2-2004 and 31-3-2009, the order of the Tribunal was in force and there cannot be any recovery of the excise duty from the petitioner. It was also stated that the Tribunal has not decided the matter in spite of the order of the Apex Court so no recovery could have been directed against the petitioner. It was submitted by Shri L.N. Soni, learned senior Advocate that aforesaid notices may be quashed.

(3.) Shri Vinay Zelawat learned counsel appearing for Revenue opposed the contention and submitted that the aforesaid notices have been issued to keep the issue alive and as per order passed by the Apex Court, the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal and the intravenous fluids manufactured by the petitioner have been held to be exciseable, so petitioner is liable to make the payment of tax as per notices issued by the department. Shri Soni, learned senior counsel also submitted that this matter is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Prem Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India and another - W.P. No. 117/2010, dated 1-2-2010, but the aforesaid position is disputed by Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned counsel appearing for respondents. As the matter is subjudice before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner may rely this judgment before the Tribunal to submit that the matter is covered by the decision and the product of petitioner is not excisable.