COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. SURESH KUMAR PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order dated 23 -7 -1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.

(2.) RESPONDENTS remained absent inspite of notice. Accordingly, we proceed to pass an order after hearing Shri K. Panchatcharam, learned JDR for the Revenue.

(3.) THE Officers of the Customs Range, Bhinmal seized two video Cameras, two Battery Chargers, three Batteries, three Video cassettes and one Head Cleaner, all made in Japan on 21 -11 -1992 from the appellant under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause as to why the seized goods of foreign origin should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act. As can be seen from the records that show cause notice was sent by post under Registered cover which reached the respondents. But since he was not found available at the given address, the said registered cover was returned by postal authorities on 10 -5 -1993 with the remark that the addressee had left without address and hence, returned. Subsequently, a copy of the said notice was served on the addressee. The Additional Collector, who conducted the matter confiscated the goods and also imposed, a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on the ground that the adjudication order did not discuss the facts regarding actual date of service of the notice. The Deputy Commissioner in the readjudication proceedings had passed an order with the following findings : -