9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring with the consent of both the sides. 3. The learned SDR stated that the Kanpur Customs Officers recovered electronic goods of foreign origin from the business premises of the appellant and seized them as the respondent could not produce evidence of legal importation and acquisition, etc. 4. A show cause notice was issued on 9-7-1987. Attempts were made to serve the show cause notice personally but the respondent refused to receive the same. Hence the show cause notice was pasted at the door of a shop in the presence of two independent witnesses on 11-7-1987. 5. A copy of the notice was also pasted on the notice board of the Collectorate on 11-7-1987 as provided under Section 153(b) of CA 62. The respondents in their defence reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat show cause notice was properly served as per the provisions of Section 153(b) of the Customs Act. 14. It was also their submission that the observations of the Collector of Customs regarding the goods and the notification under Section 11(b) were vague. 15. It was their contention that in respect of the goods to which Section 123 and Chapter 4 apply, the burden of proof lies with the respondent. 16. In view of the above position, it is prayed that the order of the Collector (Appeals) may be set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector may be restored. 17. The learned representative for the respondents stated that the show cause notice was not properly served. 18. It was their contention that they had raised this point be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. He therefore prays that the order of the Collector (Appeals) may be upheld. 22. I find that the learned SDR is correct in pointing out that the show cause notice had been pasted on the shop of the appellant in the presence of two independent witnesses as apparent from the attested copy of the document evidencing pasting in the presence of two witnesses on 11-7-1987. The learned SDR is also correct in pointing out that the show-cause notice was also pasted on the notice board of the Central Excise Collectorate on 11-7-1987 as apparent from the documents evidencing such pasting (the attested photo copy of which is at page 41). 23. There is nothing to show that these actions were manipulated or mala fide. The written submission of one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be faulted. 26. Furthermore since the notice could not be tendered personally to the respondent, as an abundant caution, the department had pasted a copy of the same on the notice board of the Collectorate and this was justified in the above circumstances and amounted to proper service in terms of Section 153(b) which allow service by affixing on the notice board of the Custom House to which the Collectorate are responsible. 27. In view of the above factual and legal position I hold that the notice was duly served on the appellant. 28. As such I hold that the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in this respect. As regards the merits of the case I find that it has not been properly examined in as much as the show cause notice refers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
