9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants, during arguments, has cited the Notices of the Textile Committee issued to M/s. Silvassa Industries Pvt. Ltd. that the returns for the period are submitted by them and they were assessed accordingly. So far as the impugned Demand Notice is concerned, which is issued under Rule 8 states that an opportunity of being heard is given and after that the Demand Notice is issued. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Appellants are only processing units and they are given the yarns by the suppliers to whom notices are already issued for having filed the return. After processing, these materials were sent back to the concerned supplier. Since the Appellants are not manufacturing any Textile, they are not required to pay the cess. The second argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submits that the Appellants' contention is not tenable under law as they are required to pay the cess. One Affidavit is already filed by the Accounts Officer of the Respondent. According to her, opportunity was given to the Appellants but they did not avail. It is further submitted that the processing units are liable to pay the cess as per the Judgment in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) = AIR 1989 SC 516. The Hon'ble Apex Court by this Judgment has expanded the term "manufacture" and roped in other processing activities like dyeing, finishing and printing textile within the ambit of manufacture. 5. Shri Bharat Raichandani has filed a copy of Order dated 24-10-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought a personal hearing but unfortunately, the Demand Notice was issued on 11-7-2005. The fact that the personal hearing is not given pursuant to the request 'of the Appellants is not denied by the Respondent and the Demand Notice under Rule 8 is issued without hearing the Appellants, therefore, the Demand Notice dehors the Rule. 8. So far as the Circular of 1984 is concerned, the catena of decisions cited by the Appellants supra clarifies the tenability of the Circular and its binding effect. The documents submitted by the Appellants give proof of payment of cess by the supplier, which is never controverted by the Respondent. The Respondent has never placed on record any Circular/Instructions, showing that processors have to pay the ces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
