1990 (6) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the main case is taken up for hearing 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bed procedure. 13. It was their contention that 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtment has not discharged its burden in terms of the law. 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 ....