ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. After hearing both sides, we have decided to take up the appeal itself after waiving deposit.
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that it wrongly availed of the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported product.
3. It is the contention for the counsel for the appellant that it did not avail of the benefit of notification 203/92 at all but of notification 204/92, which did not contain any such condition. His contention is seen to be correct from the copies of the import licences and the bill of entry produced before us. The two licences in question are quantity based advance licences, entitling goods imported under them to the benefit of notification 204/92, and not notification 203/92. The copy of the bills of entry under which the goods were cleared shows that the importer claimed, and was granted, notification 204/92 and not notification 203/92.
4. it is evident that the Commissioner’s order has been passed without considering the basis issues involved and facts in question and therefore cannot be sustained.
5. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.