9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T)]. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Appellants were served with a demand notice amounting to Rs. 1,28,785.90 alleging short payment. The ld. Advocate submits that they were not served with copy of show cause notice. Subsequently, however, they came to know that a demand notice had been issued prior to detention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmity in that he could not base order on a ground not urged in the proceedings and that this infirmity cannot be cured. In support of his contention he cited the case reported in AIR 1978 SC in the case of Mohinder Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2289 (Bom.). Arguing for revenue the ld. DR submits that show cause notice clearly mentions the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) could be remanded not only for this purpose but also for the purpose of examining eligibility to Notification which is conditional notification. 2. We have heard both sides. We observe that Collector (Appeals) could not have recorded the finding on a ground not discussed in order-in-original and should have remanded the matter to Asstt. Collector (Customs) for considering eligibility or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate that after notice was returned as undelivered the authority should have taken steps to adopt all those methods of service of notice as set out in Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962. Non-adoption of any alternative method would render proceedings invalid and cites the case of Payal Ashok Kumar Jindal reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 19 (SC) and the case reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 533 (Ker.). Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
