JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.
2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner had demanded duty on his conclusion that the goods that the appellant had imported were not entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92, for the reason that modvat credit had been taken in the course of manufacture of exported goods, thus contravened one of the conditions subject to which the exemption in the notification is available.
3. Representative of the appellant contends that the appellant had not received the notice to its own address from which it operates. The Commissioner himself records that the notice has bene returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. He says that the demand is barred by limitation, and the appellant was the transferee of the licence.
4. On the facts of this case, we think that the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain these facts to the Commissioner.
5. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall consider the submissions that the appellant will file within two months from the receipt of this order, and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard.