2005 (4) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ke up the matter, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of Rule. 2.The petitioner, a Limited Company, is carrying on business of manufacture of medicines. The dispute between the parties relates to levy of duty on physicians' samples of patent or proprietary medicines manufactured by the petitioner. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present petition to enter into any discussion on merits of the said aspect of the matter. 3.It appears that pursuant to different show cause notices the Additional Collector passed an Order-in-Original confirming demand of Rs. 1,96,313/- on physicians' samples. The petitioner's appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... all issues raised before it could not be considered. 6.The legal position as to the effect of decision of Apex Court or a decision of the jurisdictional High Court is well settled and needs no elaboration. In the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax - (1999) 237 ITR 834, this Court has laid down as under : "Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtex Act, 1964 provides for rectification of mistake apparent from the record. A point which is debatable cannot be termed a mistake. But when the point is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court or concerned High Court, either rendered be rectified, then the point ceases to be a debatable point and it also ceases to be a point requiring elaborate arguments or detailed inve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d before it, it was of no consequence as to whether the original appeal was conducted by one representative and the petitioner was represented by another person in rectification proceedings. The reason assigned by the Tribunal can only be a ground for rejecting an application in case any fact or averment which is relatable to personal knowledge of the representative is averred in the rectification proceedings. The present is not such a case. The petitioner, through its representative, had merely invited attention of the Tribunal to the fact that it had failed to render any decision on merits of the controversy between the parties. The Tribunal could not have shut out the case of the petitioner on flimsy ground that the representative before....