Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.5 Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner No. 1-Company made a representation to the concerned officer on 12-9-1995, a copy of which is at Annexure-8 to the petition. In that representation, the petitioner No. 1-Company challenged the validity of the demand notice dated 8-5-1995 on the ground that it was issued without jurisdiction and that the demand was illegal and unconstitutional. It was stated by the petitioner No. 1-Company that it did not have all the records of the period in question but, on the basis of such material as could be gathered from the records, they were giving the reply, It was also stated that the petitioner No. 1-Company had referred the reports of Organization Research Group (O.R.G. Reports) which were made the basis of calculation by the Department while issuing the demand notice for tentative calculation of the unintended benefits alleged to have been taken by the petitioner No. 1-Company in the said notice. The petitioner No. 1-Company also contended that it had suffered unintended losses, because it had procured the drugs at a price higher than the allowed price; it had distributed free samples of formulations to doctors; it had paid higher trade discount and incurred higher packing material cost and higher conversion charges and had incurred losses also due to added overages of bulk drug in the formulations. According to the petitioner No. 1-Company, it had suffered losses to the nine of Rs. 1,95,38,628 on account of lower costs of inputs allowed to the petitioner No. 1-Company, higher discounts paid, disbursement of free samples, addition of overages etc. and, therefore, that amount should be paid to the petitioner No. 1 from the D.P.E. Account. Other legal contentions against the validity of Paragraph 7(2) read with Paragraph 17 of the Control Order of 1979 were also taken in the representation and an opportunity of personal hearing was sought.