2016 (11) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shastri, Asstt. Commr.  (A.R) for respondent ORDER The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/311/NGP/2011 dt. 05.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur, whereby the Ld. Commissioner upholding the Order-in-Original NO. 7/DEM/CND/10-11 dated 28/10/2010 rejected the appeal of the appellant and also upheld the imposition of penalty but redu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor, SEZ Section, Department of Commerce dt. 30.1.2009, wherein the concerned department has confirmed that  M/s. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd. is a developer of SEZ, therefore, entire basis of the demand does not sustain.  She further submits that though it is undisputed that the appellant is a SEZ Developer even if it is presumed that they are contractor even then the facts remains t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. is not to the SEZ Developer but to the contractor. Rrom the letter of the Department of Commerce, it is clear that the M/s. Bajaj Holding & Investment 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 SE....