9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying the cess by submitting the proof of payment of the cess by the supplier - Once the burden of payment is satisfactorily discharged, the appellants can absolve itself from the liability of paying the cess - Hence the appellants are not liable to pay any cess. - - - 69/2008 - Dated:- 16-2-2010 - Shri J. Khosla, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Javed Ansari, Counsel and M/s. L.S. Shetty Associates, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants have filed this appeal by challenging the Demand Notice dated 21-8-2008 for Rs. 48,86,314/- for the periods 2006-07 4/2007 to 5/2007 on the ground that the Demand Notice is not maintainable as the cess is already pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l processed by them. Basing on this Circular, the ld. Counsel submits that the cess is already paid by the supplier and he has submitted the roof of payment by filing the copies of demand drafts for the relevant period. It is submitted that before the issuance of the Demand Notice, a Show Cause Notice was given, fixing a personal hearing on 21-7-2008 but the same was received by the appellants on 12-9-2008. It is also submitted that without giving a personal hearing the Demand Notice was issued on 21-8-2008. The ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that once cess is paid 3. by the supplier, the processing unit like the appellants is not required to pay the cess in terms of the Circular issued by the Respondent. He submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-11-2000 issued by the Textile Committee, which is filed before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that this is an individual letter addressed to M/s. Radhika Prints, Amritsar and it is not a Circular. The judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) support the contention. This letter can neither override nor supersede the Circular dated 14-11-1984 and, therefore, the Circular is valid and binding. In view of such contentions, iam of the opinion that the Circular is still valid and binding on the department. After hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
