ORDER 1. THE RESPONDENTS ADVOCATE HAS TAKEN A DISCHARGE. IN SPITE OF NOTICE FROM THE REGISTRY THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT APPEARING EITHER PERSONALLY OR F THROUGH ANY ADVOCATE. 2. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "CEGAT") DATED 22-9-1999. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE RESPONDENTS ARE MANUFACTURERS OF RESIN-BONDED BAMBOO MATS. ONE OF THE INPUTS FOR MANUFACTURE OF THIS PRODUCT IS PHENOL FORMALDEHYDE RESIN. BY NOTIFICATION NO. 175/86-CE DATED 1-3-1986 THE ABOVEMENTIONED INPUT WAS EXEMPTED FROM DUTY PROVIDED THE FIRST CLEARANCE DID NOT EXCEED RUPEES SEVEN AND-A-HALF LAKHS. BY NOTIFICATION NO. 216/86-CE DATED 2-4-1986 THE LIMIT WAS RAISED TO RS 30 LAKHS. A FURTHER NOTIFICATION NO. 217/86-CE DATED 2-4- H 1986 WAS ISSUED WHEREIN IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT IF DUTY WAS PAID ON THE FINAL PRODUCT, THEN ALL INPUTS WOULD BE FREE OF DUTY. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY NOTIFICATION NO. 164/90-CE DATED 17-12-1990 THE FINAL PRODUCT WAS EXEMPTED FROM DUTY. 4. THE APPELLANTS ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21-5-1991 CLAIMING DUTY AND PENALTY ON THE BASIS THAT NOTIFICATION NO. 164/90-CE DATED 17 -12-1990 EXEMPTED THE FINAL PRODUCT FROM DUTY AND, THEREFORE, DUTY WAS PAYABLE ON THE INPUTS. 5. BY AN ORDER DATED 1-6-1992 THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR LEVIED DUTY. THIS DUTY WAS LEVIED NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE INPUTS WERE DUTIABLE AS THE FINAL PRODUCT WAS EXEMPTED. THE DUTY WAS LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLEARANCES EXCEEDED RS 30 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THIS WAS NOT THE BASIS OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED LAW THAT DUTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON A BASIS NOT SET OUT IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. 6. THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS) SET ASIDE THE DUTY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PURUSHOTHAM GOCULDAS PLYWOOD CO. V. CCE1. THE DECISION HOLDS THAT IF THE TOTAL CLEARANCE DOES NOT EXCEED RS 30 LAKHS THEN THE BENEFIT OF THE NOTIFICATION CAN BE AVAILED OF. CEGAT HAS REFUSED TO INTERFERE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EARLIER DECISION HAS NOT YET BEEN OVERRULED. WE ARE TOLD THAT NOW THE QUESTION COVERED BY PURUSHOTHAM GOCULDAS PLYWOOD CO. 1 HAS BEEN REFERRED TO A LARGER BENCH FOR RECONSIDERATION. 7. AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT THE GROUND ON WHICH DUTY WAS LEVIED, WE SEE NO NEED TO GO INTO THIS QUESTION. WE ARE TOLD THAT NOW THE QUESTION COVERED BY PURUSHOTHAM GOCULDAS PLYWOOD CO. 1 HAS BEEN REFERRED TO A LARGER BENCH FOR RECONSIDERATION. 7. AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT THE GROUND ON WHICH DUTY WAS LEVIED, WE SEE NO NEED TO GO INTO THIS QUESTION. WE LEAVE THIS QUESTION OPEN TO BE DECIDED BY THE LARGER BENCH. 8. IN THIS VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE. 9. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.