Customs demand limitation turns on proof of receipt date; bare presumption of delayed service cannot invalidate the notice.

A customs demand notice for short levy was not vitiated on limitation where the record did not establish the actual date of receipt, and the importer merely relied on a possible delay in service. The party asserting limitation had to prove the receipt date; absent such proof, the lower appellate authority could not annul the demand on a bare presumption. The additional grounds for setting aside the order-in-original also failed because the order identified the relevant notification numbers and the basis of the duty demand. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice for less charge of duty was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the order-in-original could be set aside on the other grounds accepted by the lower appellate authority.

Analysis: The notice of demand was challenged on the footing that it might have been served beyond six months from the date of payment of duty. The record, however, did not establish the date of receipt of the notice by the respondents, and the respondents were not disputing receipt of the notice itself. In the absence of proof of the receipt date, the lower appellate authority could not have annulled the demand merely on a presumed possibility of delayed service. The other grounds relied upon for setting aside the order-in-original were also found unsatisfactory, as the order-in-original had identified the notification numbers and the basis on which the duty demand had arisen.

Conclusion: The demand notice was not liable to be set aside on limitation, and the additional grounds for interference were also rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice cannot be invalidated on a mere of delayed service; the party asserting limitation must establish the actual date of receipt, and unsupported presumptions are insufficient to set aside the demand.

---