Modistone Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner confirming the demand for customs duty on goods imported by the appellant, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available.3. the appellant is absent and unrepresented. it is contended in the memorandum of appeal that on account of lock-out in the factory the notice was not received and therefore reply could not be filed. it is further contended that the modvat credit which was availed of with regard to the export products (the reason advanced by the commissioner for the denial of notification) has been reversed. in these circumstances we think one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present its case.4. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.the commissioner shall adjudicate on the notice, in accordance with law, after considering the submissions of the appellant.

Judgment:
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for customs duty on goods imported by the appellant, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available.

3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. It is contended in the memorandum of appeal that on account of lock-out in the factory the notice was not received and therefore reply could not be filed. It is further contended that the modvat credit which was availed of with regard to the export products (the reason advanced by the Commissioner for the denial of notification) has been reversed. In these circumstances we think one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present its case.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.

The Commissioner shall adjudicate on the notice, in accordance with law, after considering the submissions of the appellant.