High Court quashes assessing authority's orders for not determining distributor's related person status. Writ petition allowed.

The High Court quashed the orders of the assessing authority, Commissioner of Excise, and Government for failing to determine the related person status of the distributor as per the demand notice's basis. The Court emphasized the need to address the core issue raised in the notice and allowed the writ petition filed by the pharmaceutical company, highlighting the jurisdictional error in the authorities' decisions. The judgment did not discuss the applicability of certain rules under the Central Excise Act, leaving room for future consideration.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding related persons and valuation of excisable goods for charging excise duty.

Judgment Details:

1. The petitioners, a pharmaceutical company, were issued a notice by the Superintendent of Distilleries regarding the valuation of their product "HEMPHER" for excise duty calculation. The notice claimed that the sole distributor, M/s. Alkem Labs, was a related person under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, affecting the excise duty calculation.

2. The petitioners contested the related person status of M/s. Alkem Labs, stating they were not related persons as per the Act. The notice was based on Section 4(1)(a)(iii) read with sub-section 4(c) of the Act, which deals with the valuation of excisable goods for excise duty purposes.

3. The assessing authority upheld the demand notice, leading the petitioners to appeal to the Commissioner of Excise, who did not address the related person status but focused on the correctness of the wholesale price. The Government, in its revision order, also did not consider the related person aspect.

4. The definition of a "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) requires the person to be a distributor of the assessee and related to the assessee. The appellate authority did not address whether the distributor was a related person, deviating from the basis of the demand notice.

5. The High Court quashed the orders of all three authorities as they failed to determine the related person status of the distributor as per the demand notice's basis. The Court highlighted the jurisdictional error in not addressing the core issue raised in the notice.

6. The Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of addressing the specific grounds raised in the demand notice. The applicability of certain rules under the Act was not discussed in this judgment, leaving it open for future consideration.

---