JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.
2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal, demands duty from the appellant on the ground that it wrongly claimed the benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of goods that it imported against an advance licence, for the reason that one of the conditions in the notification, that modvat credit should not be availed of in the manufacture of the exported product, had been contravened.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that the advance licence was quantity based licence, not a value based licence, and that goods imported under such a licence would not be entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92. What would apply is notification 204/92, which does not contain any restriction relating to availing modvat credit, if the licence has not been transferred. The photo copy of the licence that it has been produced shows it to be a quantity based licence and the number on it is the same as indicated in the show cause notice, However, other documents such as bill of entry which would enable us to determine the issue finally are not available. We therefore think that the matter should be reconsidered by the Commissioner.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall adjudicate upon the notice in accordance with law.