ORDER : 1. Assessee - appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant' imported a consignment of 'Video Pan Cakes' from M/s. Intexcon Ptd. Ltd., Singapore vide Bill of Entry No.113376 through ICD, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi. Appellant is a 100% EOU and being a 100% EOU, the Pan Cakes were imported under Notification No.53/97 - Cus. Dated 3.6.1997 as amended vide Notification No.12/98 - Cus. dated 27.4.1998. After importing the Video Pan Cakes, appellant dispatched a consignment of Video Magnetic Spools (mounted on single hub) made out of the Video Pan Cakes for export to M/s. Intexcon Ptd. Ltd., Singapore. When the Central Excise Officer was called to the factory of the appellant, he selected 11 cartons from the consignment and after satisfying himself that these spools were in accordance with the declaration made in the shipping bill, he, along with his Superintendent passed the AR - 4 and put four lead seals on the container allowing the export consignment. Consignment was then taken under the escort of Central Excise Officer to be cleared for Mumbai Port through ICD, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi. Examination Report prepared by the Superintendent, Central Excise, has been put on record. 2. Consignment cleared for Mumbai Port was to be loaded in a vessel "Orient Aishwarya 121" but it was not allowed to be loaded by the Customs Officers at Mumbai and the consignment was shifted in the Shed Area. Thereafter, two officers from Delhi Customs reached Mumbai Port to draw samples from the consignment and after taking out the consignment, the department came to the conclusion that the Video Magnetic Spools to be exported by the appellant were not made from the imported Video Pan Cakes. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed on 18th September, 1998. The goods were seized on 19.11.1998. A show cause notice dated 19th March, 1999 under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') was issued by the Commissioner of Customs(General), New Delhi and dispatched on 23th March, 1999, which was received by the appellant on 27th March, 1999 for confiscation of the Video Magnetic Tapes valued at Rs. 43,70,436/- seized from the container for demanding customs duty to the tune of Rs. 19,83,883/- and for imposition of penalty under the Act. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits, limitation and on the point of jurisdiction. 3. 43,70,436/- seized from the container for demanding customs duty to the tune of Rs. 19,83,883/- and for imposition of penalty under the Act. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits, limitation and on the point of jurisdiction. 3. Commissioner(Customs) vide his order dated 27.07.2000 being the authority - in - original confirmed the demand; ordered the confiscation of the consignment and imposed penalty on the firm as well as on the proprietor. 4. Aggrieved against the order - in - original passed by the Commissioner(Customs), appellant filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal') which did not accept the contention of the appellant regarding jurisdiction. On merits, Tribunal observed that the revenue has relied upon the opinion obtained from Station Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi, the revenue should have allowed his cross-examination by the appellant in accordance with the principles of natural justice and accordingly it remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication after allowing the cross-examination of Station Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi. On the point of limitation, Tribunal, taking the date of detention as 28.09.1998 instead of 18.09.1998 as stated by the counsel appearing for the appellant, held that the show cause notice was issued within six months from the date of detention. This appears to be a wrong finding and the same is set aside. The matter has already been remitted by the Tribunal to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. We deem it appropriate to remand the matter on the question of limitation as well to the Commissioner for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 5. Commissioner(Customs) shall now pass the order - in - original afresh in accordance with law on merits, confirmation of the demand without issuing show cause notice, jurisdiction and limitation keeping in view the Board Circular No.491/8/72-Cus-VI dated 25.5.1972 and various judgments which were cited at the Bar by both sides and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. All contentions are left open to both the parties. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute. 6. All contentions are left open to both the parties. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute. Since, it is an old case and the show cause notice was issued in March 1999, We direct the Commissioner to dispose of this case within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Appeals are allowed in the above terms.