Full Judgment
3. The appellant's reply to the notice does not, in terms, assert that credit was not taken. It dwells mainly on availability of credit on the imported raw material, with which the notice was not concerned. Even so, it was up to the Custom House which alleged that credit had been taken, to show that this was the case. The departmental representative was given an opportunity to have this aspect verified at the last hearing. He tells us today that he has not received any answer from the Commissioner concerned, despite correspondence addressed to him and personal efforts made by him. It is also to be noted that the notices to show cause were issued after the imported goods were cleared, after according to them the benefit, of notification. It was therefore all the more reason to indicate the basis for the allegation that credit had been taken. This was required to be supplemented, since the notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date by material justifying the invocation of the extended period contained in the proviso under Section 28(1) of the Act. There is a total absence of any material justifying the allegation of suppression. The Advocate for the appellant makes a statement that it was never stated by the appellant that it had not availed Modvat credit. One of the two bills of entry under which the goods were imported, of which a copy is enclosed, does not contain any such declaration. That being the case the contention of the appellant that there is no basis whatsoever for the demand has to be accepted.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.