9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment Ltd. is an SEZ Developer. Moreover, while making an allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant is contractor, no material evidence was adduced by the department that whether the M/s. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd. is contractor or SEZ Developer. This Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 655 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that even if the buyer is contractor of SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/DEM/CND/10-11 dated 28/10/2010 rejected the appeal of the appellant and also upheld the imposition of penalty but reduced to ₹ 2000/-. 2. The fact of the case is that the demand was made under Rule 6(3) (1) at the rate of 10% of the value of the goods supplied to M/s. Bajaj Holding Investment Ltd. SEZ, on the ground that the M/s. Bajaj Holding Investment Ltd. is not a SEZ Develope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a SEZ Developer even if it is presumed that they are contractor even then the facts remains that the goods remain SEZ suppliers only. She placed reliance on the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2015 (315) E.L.T. 238 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held that even the goods supplied to contractor of SEZ unit of SEZ developer, the provisions of Rule 6 regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the M/s. Bajaj Holding Investment Ltd. is contractor or SEZ Developer. This Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) held that even if the buyer is contractor of SEZ unit or developer. Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be made applicable for demanding 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ. As per the above discussion, I am of the considered view that demand of 10% c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
