Baldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
In the present case inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from perusal of the order-in-original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have proceeded to pass the ex-parte order-in-original, which is held to be a nullity in the eyes of law. Substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Department is by way of last resort. In the facts of the present case, I find that without identifying, the noticee, nor taking any reasonable measures of any substituted service as mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of Section 153(1), the Adjudicating Authority have proceeded to pass the ex-parte adjudication order. For passing a valid adjudication order, valid service of show cause notice is essential. Accordingly, I hold that there is no valid service of show cause notice. Thus, the order-in-original is held without authority of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice was validly served on the appellant which is a condition precedent for giving jurisdiction to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order.
2. The case of the appellant is that he is neither an importer nor engaged in the business of import and export. Further, he does not have any Import Export Code (IEC). Brief facts of the case are that Revenue seized post parcels bearing Nos.
(i) EMS No. EA122469270 CN;
(ii) EA122469411 CN; and
(iii) EA 122469345 CN
imported from China not bearing the name of consignor, at foreign post office, New Delhi. The parcels were addressed to Shri Baldeep Singh, D-164, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi – 110008. The parcels were examined by the officers of DRI under panchnama. The goods were declared as CD and/or module whereas the goods were actually found as follows:-
