Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Although the stay application has been listed today, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit.
2. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has demanded duty from the appellant on the ground that benefit of Notification 203/92 which was granted when the goods imported by the appellant was cleared from Customs is not due to it for the reason that it was availed of Modvat credit.
3. It is the appellant’s contention that it was never the importer. It obtained the advance licence subsequent to an export of goods which it transferred in accordance with law and therefore ceased to have any connection with the licensee. It is further contained that the notice to show cause was not received by it.
4. The matter was adjourned on five occasions from 11-11-1999 onwards to enable the departmental representative to verify this contention of the appellant. There is still no clear evidence to show that the notice was received by the appellant. A copy of the notice to show cause which is in the file of the Commissioner, which the departmental representative has produced before us today, has not indicated any basis on which it can be said that the Modvat credit had been availed of when the goods were exported. It also has not indicated any basis for invoking the extended period contained in proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act. It is one of a stereo type, which is issued in a number of such cases, only the details of importer having been filled up. The notice is dated 29.05.1999 and demand duty on goods imported in September and October, 1994. The departmental representative has nothing further to say.
5. In these circumstances we are unable to confirm the correctness of the order, set aside the same and allow the appeal.