TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, in our view, the Appellants can absolve itself from the liability of paying the cess. In the light of such discussion, the Appellants are not liable to pay any cess and hence, the Demand Notice issued to them is contrary to law and not sustainable. Thus, quash and set aside the Demand Notice and allow the Appeal. - 72 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2009 - Shri J. Khosla, Presiding Officer REPRESENTED BY: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. M/s. L.S. Shetty Associates, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Appellants have filed this Appeal by challenging the Demand Notice dated 11-7-2005 for Rs. 33,48,795/- for the period 4/2003 to 3/2004 on the ground that the Demand Notice is not maintainable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the cess is already paid by the supplier and he has submitted the proof 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. This was replied by the Appellants vide their letter dated 27-6-2005 with a request for giving a personal hearing and without giving a personal hearing the Demand Notice was issued on 11-7-2005. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further argued that once cess is paid 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 the Demand Notice is issued, dehors the Rule and, therefore, not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal. The L 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, I am of the opinion that the Circular is still valid and binding on the department. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, I find that a Show Cause Notice in fact, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
