Page 187 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SURINDER KHANNA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NEW DELHI 865

manifestation of such application. Whether on a claim for exemption under Noti-
fication No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17 March, 2012 (or the predecessor exemption)
or the exemption governing goods of Indian origin, there is no duty implication.
The declaration, acceptable or otherwise, in the bill of entry is, therefore, of no
consequence. In these circumstances, the scope for imposition of penalty under
Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 does not arise.
38. For the above reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the
impugned order and allowing the appeals.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 6-6-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 865 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]

Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
SURINDER KHANNA
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NEW DELHI

Final Order No. A/50079/2020-SM(BR), dated 13-1-2020 in Appeal No.
C/53412/2018-SM
Show Cause Notice - Service of - No proper authorization given to
Rohit Bhasin to receive notice nor he is a relative of appellant - Service of no-
tice on this person not effective service of show cause notice on the appellant -
Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 5]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Y. Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Re-
spondent.
[Order]. - This appeal is filed against order-in-original, dated 14-5-2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Del-
hi absolutely confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 7,04,000/- under Section 111(d)
of the Customs Act, 1962, further personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant
and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- each on Shri Bhimendra Kumar Goyal and Shri
Rahul Goyal under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Upon hearing the parties and on going through the impugned order,
I find that there is no satisfaction recorded of service of show cause notice in the
ex parte order. Further, it is recorded in para 12 of the impugned order that there
is no reply or written submission from any of the noticee. Further, personal hear-
ing was fixed for appearance on 23-3-2017, 18-4-2017, 30-5-2017 and 26-7-2017.
4. As the fact of service of show cause notice is not recorded in the im-
pugned order, this Tribunal directed Learned AR to file evidence of issue and
service of show cause notice, dated 25-9-2015, issued by the Additional Director
General, DRI, DZU, New Delhi. As per the report dated 3-6-2019 issued by the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  187