Full Judgment
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. We have, therefore, heard ld. J.D.R. Shri R.S.Sangia, in support of the Revenue's appeal. Issue involved in the present matter is whether the notice of less charge demand of duty was served within six months or not from the date of payment of duty. The lower appellate authority has merely relied upon the possibility that the less charged demand notice would have been served after the time limit specified under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, on a point being raised by the respondents that the date of payment was 29th March, 1982 and the demand notice was issued on 24th September, 1982. We are of the view that on this point, the demand notice should not have been set aside. The lower appellate authority ought to have asked the respondents as to which date the respondents received the notice of demand. We further observe that the respondents are not denying the receipt of the notice of demand. Once this fact have been noted, they would have to give the date of receipt in support of their plea that the notice of demand was received after the expiry of six months. The lower appellate authority therefore, in our view, have gone wrong in merely relying upon the "possibility" of service of demand notice being delivered after expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty.
2. However, other grounds for setting aside the order-in-original given in the impugned order are also not satisfactory in our view. The impugned order-in-original clearly sets the notification numbers etc.
on the basis of which the less charge demand of duty became due against the respondents.
3. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.