Full Judgment
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner finds that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of the notification 203/92 for the reason that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption is available, that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods, had been contravened.
3. On the last occasion the counsel for the appellant produced a copy of the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai, adjudicating upon a notice issued to the appellant before us, proposing denial of benefit of the notification 203/92. In that order, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings after holding that appellant had produced before him evidence of non-availment of modvat credit. The department representative took time verify the contention of the counsel for the appellant that one of the licences, No. 0311919 dated 2.3.1993, under which the goods under consideration have been imported also figure in the earlier order. He today tell us that he has been informed by the department that one of the notices which the Commissioner also adjudicated upon related to goods imported under this licence.
4. That being the case finding of the Commissioner in his earlier order that evidence of non-availment of modvat credit was produced would apply with equal force with the notice under consideration. Accordingly the appellant should not have been denied the benefit of notification on the ground proposed in the notice.