D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT
: Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors... D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Date of Judgment ::
6. h September 2013. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Bhansali ] Mr. Siddharth Tatiya ], for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari,J.) Having regard to the circumstances of the case, with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this intra-court appeal has been considered finally at this stage itself. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant has questioned the order dated 09.11.2011, as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.747/2009 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere in the order dated 08.12.2008, as passed by the Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal (‘the Appellate Tribunal’ hereafter) in the appeal (TCA D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 2 // No.29/2008) preferred against the demand notice dated 09.07.2008 for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,97,783/- towards cess on textiles for the period between the month of October 2004 to the month of September 2005. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows : The appellant company is said to have acquired the assets and liabilities of the transferee company known as “SPBL Ltd.”, who had a processing unit of man-made fabric at Atun, Chittorgarh. (For contextual continuity, the expression 'appellant' hereinafter includes the said transferee company SPBL Ltd. too). It had been the case of the appellant that though engaged in textiles processing, it has no facility of spinning and weaving of cloth. According to the appellant, its activity has been to receive grey fabric from various traders/manufacturers and after reprocessing the cloths as per the requirements of the respective customers, to return the fabric to them, who are deemed manufacturers in respect of the grey cloths/fabrics and, who are making payment of excise duty on the value of these goods, which includes the cost of grey fabric as also the processing charges of the appellant. The appellant-company was served with a notice dated 09.07.2008, as issued by the Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee (the respondent No.3) raising a demand in the sum of Rs.9,88,957/- towards textiles cess, calculated at the rate of .05% D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 3 // on the value of cloth processed by it for the period between the months of October 2004 to September 2005. In the said notice, an amount of Rs.91,174/- was shown as having been deposited by the appellant company and making adjustment thereof, the appellant was called upon to deposit the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.8,97,783/-. Seeking to question the aforesaid demand notice dated 09.07.2008, the appellant preferred an appeal (TCA No.29/2008) before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 (‘the Act of 1963’) with the contentions, inter alia, that no notice was given before raising the demand; and that the demand notice was not sustainable because cess was not leviable on the dyed cloth, if it had already been paid on such a cloth. The submissions on behalf of the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal had been that the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, shrinking, proofing etc. amounted to manufacture as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints’ case : AIR 1989 SC 516. It was also submitted that earlier, a notice was issued on 27.01.2006 and in response thereof, advance payment was made by the appellant. It was contended on the basis of these facts that once the payment of cess was established, the appellant was not entitled to deny its payment on other grounds. The Appellate Tribunal took note of the arguments of the respective parties but then, expressed the D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 4 // opinion that having made payment of cess, the appellant was not entitled to deny such payment on the demand notice issued for the balance amount. The Appellate Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 08.12.2008. The construction of the contents of the order dated 08.12.2008 being an aspect involved herein, it appears appropriate to reproduce the order dated 08.12.2008 in extenso as under: - “The Appellants have filed this Appeal by challenging the Demand Notice dated 09.07.2008 for Rs.8,97,783/- for the period 10/2004 to 9/2005 on the ground that no opportunity was given in issuing the Demand Notice and a processor is not liable to pay the cess.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has strenuously argued that no opportunity was given to the Appellants to show cause as to why the demand shall not be paid. Further, it is argued that the Appellants being processors are not liable to pay any cess in terms of proviso to section 5A(1) of the Textile Committee Act, 1963. The Ld. Counsel has cited the ruling of the CEGAT in the case of Collector of Central Excise V/s. Kumar Textiles, reported in 1997 (93) ELT 414 (Tribunal), wherein it is held that “Cess cannot be levied and collected on dyed cloth if it has already been paid once on cloth (grey fabrics)”. Further, it is submitted that the Demand Notice is not sustainable under law and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri Javed Ansari, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent strongly refuted the contention of the Appellants and filed a Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, wherein it is clarified that “Textiles (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed)”. This was also circulated to others vide the Textile Committee letter dated 03.08.2000. The Ld. Counsel has submitted the Ujagar Prints case, reported in AIR 1989 SC 516, wherein the word “manufacture” is defined. It is held that process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, shrinking proofing, etc. amount to manufacture. This Judgment is rendered by a Constitutional Bench and, therefore, binding.
4. The Ld. Counsel has argued that a show cause notice already issue to the Appellants vide letter dated 27.01.2006 and which was replied by the Appellants, a copy of which is marked as Annexure B & C. It is pointed out by him that in Demand Notice the advance payment made is also indicated and the Demand Notice is issued for the balance amount. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the Appellants falls flat on the face D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 5 // of the documents filed by him, which discloses the payment of cess. Once payment of cess established, it cannot be denied on other grounds. The Appellants have proved that cess is paid by them and filed documents to this effect.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants, by adverting to a Circular dated 14.11.1984, argues that cess could not be paid on such material processed by them. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand pointed out the Circular, provides that if cess is already paid then proof is to be given by the processor. In this instant Appeal the onus is on the Appellants to prove that cess is already paid by others and, therefore, they need not pay the same. As the Appellants have already burdened themselves in paying the ces, they now cannot take a different plea by denying payment of cess.
6. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Circular states that textile is inclusive of dyed, printed and otherwise processed. Hence, processing is also a textile and the activity amounts to manufacturing of textile and, therefore, liable to pay the cess under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. After hearing the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the Appellants have furnished proof of payment of the cess and, therefore, now cannot deny to pay the cess when the Demand Notice is issued for the balance payment.
7. In view of our above discussion, the Appeal fails. The Demand Notice is issued in accordance with law and, therefore, it cannot be faulted. The Appeal has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed, however, without any costs.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2008, the petitioner-appellant preferred the writ petition, which has been considered and dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 09.11.2011. The learned Single Judge took note of Section 5A of the Act of 1963 and the contents of the impugned order dated 08.12.2008. The learned Single Judge also took note of the submissions of the respondents with reference to the decision in Ujaghar Prints’ case (supra). The learned Single Judge also observed that the petitioner-appellant had failed to produce any document to even prima facie satisfy the Court that the earlier payment of cess was under protest or after D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 6 // reserving any right to challenge the levy thereof. The learned Single Judge, therefore, inferred acquiescence of the petitioner- appellant towards its liability to pay cess under the Act of 1963. The relevant part of the observations and the findings of the learned Single Judge in the order impugned could be noticed as under:-
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, submitted that mere payment of cess in question by the petitioner-company did not dis-entitle it from arguing before the Tribunal that no such cess was leviable upon it.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr.Math- ur, supported the impugned order and submitted that payment of cess in question by the petitioner-company amounted to acquies- cence of its liability to pay such cess; and in absence of any doc- uments placed on record that such cess was paid under protest or notwithstanding the contentions of the petitioner disputing its liability, learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-company.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order of the learned Appel- late Tribunal, it does not appear that the petitioner-company made any argument or contention before the said Tribunal that notwithstanding the demand of cess in question, the petitioner was not liable to pay the same nor any such document showing such payment of cess 'under protest' has been placed on record. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel relied upon the Circu- lar dated 14.11.1984, issued by the Ministry of Textiles, Govern- ment of India, wherein it was clarified that textiles (including died, printed and otherwise), was liable to pay in respect of such man- ufacturing by the petitioner-Company. The Revenue also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ujaghar Prints case, reported in AIR 1989 SC 516, wherein the Apex Court has held that process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, shrinking proofing, etc. of textile amount to manufacture. The said judg- ment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court relied upon by the Revenue was a reason on the basis of which the Tribunal up- held the said levy further relying upon factum that the petitioner itself in the meanwhile had paid cess in question without a demur and, therefore, the appeal of the petitioner had no merit.
7. Before this Court also, the petitioner has not produced any document like memo of appeal, written submissions before the Tribunal or even receipts showing such payment of cess made under protest to even prima-facie satisfy this Court that such D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 7 // payment of cess was made under protest reserving petitioner-In- dustry's right to challenge the levy thereof. In the face of these circumstances, nothing but the inference of acquiescence of the petitioner-company to its liability to pay such cess under the pro- visions of Act of 1963 can be drawn.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-company and there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dis- missed. No costs.” Questioning the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2011 , the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that merely on the basis of the payment of a sum of Rs.91,174/- in response to one demand notice, no inference on acquiescence could have been drawn. The learned counsel would emphasize on the submissions that the principles of acquiescence or estoppel or res judicata are not applied to the fiscal laws; and that mere fact of a part deposit or partial recovery of amount cannot be considered creating an absolute bar on the appellant to approach the appropriate Authority/Tribunal/Court in its challenge to the levy. The learned counsel has expanded on these submissions that even if it be assumed that the amount had not been deposited under protest, at the most, a question could be raised against the claim of refund, if occasion so arise but then, the deposit cannot be considered taking away the appellant’s right to question the levy in appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel has also attempted to submit that even on merits, the appellant has a strong case and, being only the processor, the appellant is not D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 8 // liable to pay any cess under the Act of 1963.The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara: AIR 1961 SC 964, Lohia Machines Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors: (1985) 152 ITR 308 (SC), Md. Zakir Hussain Vs. State of Assam & Ors : (2003) 3 GLR 324, Shree Mahavir Oil Mills & Anr. Vs. State of J&K & Ors : (1996) 11 SCC 39 and Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors : AIR 1973 SC 1041. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has duly supported the order impugned and submitted that the suggestion on behalf of the appellant as if the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal only with reference to payment of cess and on the principle of acquiescence is not correct. According to learned counsel, a comprehensive and purposive reading of the order dated 08.12.2008 makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal essentially on merits of the case after finding that the activity of the appellant amounted to manufacture and directly gave rise to the liability to pay cess under Section 5A of the Act of 1963. The learned counsel has argued that the payment of cess had been the additional factor taken into account by the Appellate Tribunal and in the face of the admitted fact situation, the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to have committed D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 9 // any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The learned counsel has further argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principles in Ujaghar Prints’ case and has rightly found that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy while relying upon the said decision with further reference to the fact that the appellant itself had paid the cess without any demur. According to learned counsel, the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as also the writ petition having been dismissed on merits as well, no case for interference in intra-court appeal is made out. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents as also the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the Appellate Tribunal entered into and adjudicated on the merits of the case too. In our view, the Appellate Tribunal non-suited the appellant only on the ground that it had made a part payment of cess and did not return any findings on the merits of the case. In the ultimate analysis, in our view, while setting aside the orders impugned, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh on merits. The impugned order dated 08.12.2008 has been reproduced in extenso hereinabove. It is but apparent that in paragraph 1 thereof, the Appellate Tribunal took note of the D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 10 // subject-matter of appeal and the broader aspects of the grounds urged by the appellant. In paragraph 2, the Appellate Tribunal elaborated on the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In paragraphs 3 and 4, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. Then, in paragraph 5, the Appellate Tribunal took note of the contentions and counter by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents respectively. Thereafter, in paragraph 6 of the order impugned, the Appellate Tribunal, again, took note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the circular that the textile was inclusive of dyed, printed and otherwise processed material and hence, processing was also textile and the activity of the appellant amounted to manufacture leading to the liability under Section 5A of the Act of 1963. So far the finding part is concerned, the same has occurred only in the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the order impugned in the following:- “…..After hearing the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the Appellants have furnished proof of payment of the cess and, therefore, now cannot deny to pay the cess when the Demand Notice is issued for the balance payment.” Thereafter, of course, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the appeal failed for its discussion foregoing; and that the demand notice was issued in accordance with law which could not be faulted at; and there was no merit in the appeal. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 11 // A comprehensive reading of the order impugned makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal devoted larger part of its order in stating the rival contentions and then, abruptly stated the opinion that the appellant, having furnished proof of payment of cess, was not entitled to deny the payment of cess when the demand notice had been issued for the balance payment. Of course, in the last paragraph, the Appellate Tribunal did observe that the demand notice was issued in accordance with law but then, such an observation cannot be treated to be a finding of the Appellate Tribunal because of the simple fact that in the entire order impugned, there is no indication as to why the Appellate Tribunal was not agreeing with or rejecting the contentions of the appellant. Mere reproduction of the contentions of the parties, in our view, cannot be construed as the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. On the fundamental requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice, the order of the Appellate Tribunal has to be a speaking order. The test for a speaking order, obviously, refers to the contents of the order and not its length. Mere reproduction of the stand of either of the parties cannot be taken sufficient for the purpose of a specific and clear finding of the Appellate Tribunal. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is clear that in the order impugned, the only part, which could be taken as that of finding and considered conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal, is the D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 12 // one re-reproduced hereinabove where the Appellate Tribunal has stated its opinion that having furnished proof of payment of cess, the appellant would not be entitled to deny payment of cess. Such an opinion, obviously, refers to the principles of acquiescence. The question, therefore, is as to whether the appellant could have been denied merit hearing of the appeal only for the reason of having made part payment of the demand in dispute. This question, however, need not detain us much longer. In Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - “(2) It may be stated at the outset that the tax now impugned has been imposed by the local authority from March 12, 1935 and that the first occasion when its validity was attacked was in only 1957, though if the petitioners are right in their submissions their acquiescence might not itself be a ground for denying them relief…….” In Md. Zakir Hussain’s case (supra), the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has tersely stated the principles in the following:-
“24. Acquiescence to an illegal collection of tax cannot legalise such collection. Since a levy is guided by law, be it in the form of fees, tolls or taxes, it has to have sanction of law. Courts cannot shirk its duty to examine such grievances by taking recourse to technical plea of delay and allow thereby, albeit inadvertently, illegal levy to continue, particularly, when levy is not in respect of one time payment, but a continuous act of collection of levy.” In the present case, it appears that on the earlier occasion, after receiving the demand notice, the appellant did make part D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 13 // payment towards the cess in question. However, that can neither be treated to be of any acquiescence nor would operate as estoppel in the manner that only for the reason of having made such a payment, the appellant may not be heard on its contentions about non-applicability of the cess in question. The approach of the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of acquiescence cannot be approved. So far the impugned order dated 09.11.2011, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition is concerned, of course, the learned Single Judge has observed that the revenue relied upon the decision in the case of Ujaghar Prints but then, further proceeded to observe that the said judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court “was a reason on the basis of which the Tribunal up-held the said levy”. According to the learned Single Judge, the factum of payment of cess had been an additional aspect relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Single Judge further observed that nothing was shown if the payment was made under protest while reserving right to challenge the same; and then, proceeded to draw the inference of acquiescence. So far the observation occurring in the order of the learned Single Judge that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy on the basis of the judgment in Ujaghar Prints’ case are concerned, as observed hereinabove, with respect, the same cannot be D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 14 // endorsed by us, particularly when we have found that the Appellate Tribunal did not enter into the merits of the case. Moreover, as observed hereinabove, the appellant could not have been non-suited only for the reason of having made a part payment of the demand in question. The learned counsel for the appellant appears right in the submission that question of making deposit without protest or under protest might have a relevance only if a question of refund arises. The part payment, by itself, could not have put curtains on the rights of the appellant to question the levy in appropriate proceedings. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the orders impugned, i.e., the order dated 09.11.2011, as passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.747/2009 and the order dated 08.12.2008, as passed by the Appellate Tribunal in TCA Appeal No.29/2008, are required to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be restored for consideration of the Appellate Tribunal on merits. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds to the extent and in the manner indicated. The impugned orders dated 09.11.2011 and 08.12.2008 are set aside. The appeal (TCA No.29/2008) is restored to the file of the Appellate Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The parties through their counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 28.10.2013. Though it goes without saying but is made clear that we have not otherwise D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 2/2012. Sangam (India) Limited Vs. Textiles Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal & Ors. // 15 // examined the merits of the case and the observations herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case either way, which shall be a matter for consideration by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. No costs. (BANWARI LAL SHARMA), J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/cpgoyal/