9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsari, Counsel and M/s. L.S. Shetty & Associates, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellants have filed the Appeal challenging the Demand Notice dated 3-4-2002 for ₹ 7,19,878/-, covering the period from 11/2000 to 10/2001. 2. The main ground urged by the Appellants is that they are only processors and not manufacturers of textile and as such they are not liable to pay the ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocessed cloth although the ld. Counsel has relied upon the case of Radhakrishna Processors but the Counsel for the Appellants did not file the case law. In view of the clarification issued through the Circular, the Demand Notice is not maintainable and, therefore, the ld. Counsel for the Appellants pray to quash and set aside the Demand Notice and allow the Appeal. 3. While countering the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued as the demand is not paid till date. 4. The ld. Counsel has also brought to our notice that before the issuance of the Demand Notice, a Show Cause Notice was also issued by giving the Appellants an opportunity of being heard by the Textile Committee's letter dated 4-2-2002. It is further stated that there are exchange of correspondences between the Appellants and the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well covered by this list but the burden is on the Appellants to prove that cess is already paid and in such case only the Appellants will be exempted to pay the cess. This Circular casts a burden on the processor to show the proof of payment of cess. If such payment is not proved, then it is liable to pay the cess. In this instant Appeal the Appellants have not proved that cess is already paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
