- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6-3-2012 of The Textile Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the levy of cess on the petitioner-Sulzer Processors Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Textile Committee Act, 1963.
(2.) The Tribunal in its impugned order dated 9-2-2009 relied upon,the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 516 in which it has been held that the processing activities of bleaching, dyeing, printing or finishing etc. amounts to manufacture of textile and, therefore, it would be fall within the mischief of charging provision of Section 5A(1) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.
(3.) The learned Tribunal distinguished the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 AIR(SC) 2237 while upholding the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue. The relevant paras 4 to 6 of the Tribunal's order are quoted below for ready reference: "4. Shri Javed Ansari, Ld. Counsel appears for the respondent and contradicts the stand of the Appellants by citing the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 516 Further, the Ld. Counsel also files a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,1998 AIR(SC) 2237. It is further argued that there is no double taxation. 5. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the case laws, I find that M/s. Ujagar Prints case holds the field as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that processing like bleaching, dyeing, printing or finishing, etc. amounts to manufacture and, therefore, the processing activities carried out by the Appellant amount to manufacture of textile and, therefore, liable to pay the cess in terms of Section 5A(1) of the Textiles Committee Act. The Judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant will be of no consequence in view of the Supreme Court Judgment. Before the issuance of Demand Notice, a show-cause notice was also issued on 24-11-2003, therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants in this regard is not tenable. 6. In view of the above discussion, the issuance of Demand Notice cannot be faulted as it is issued in accordance with law and sustainable. There is no merit in the Appeal and hence it is dismissed, however, without costs.";