9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plier and the appellants are not required to pay. 2.Shri Bharat Raichandani, ld. Counsel for the appellants, during arguments, has cited the Notices dated 8-8-2007, 6-7-2007, 12-6-2007, 8-5-2007, 23-1-2007, 22-1-2007, 3-11-2006 & 31-10-2006 of the Textile Committee issued to M/s. Reliance Industries 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 retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice is issued, de hors the Rule and, therefore, not sustainable under law and prays to quash the same and allow the appeal. Shri Javed Ansari, ld. Counsel for the Respondent counters the argument 4. 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 AIR 1989 SC 516 = 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court by this Judgement has expanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rival contentions, I find that a Show Cause Notice, in 7. fact, was issued to the appellants, which was admitted by them. The appellants have explained the position that they are not required to pay the cess and sought a personal hearing but unfortunately, the Demand Notice was issued on 21-8-2008. 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 de hors the Rule. So far as the Circular of 1984 is concerned, the catena of decisions cited 8. by the appellants supra clarifies the tenability of the Circular and its binding effect. The documents submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
