Misaddressed notice defeated duty demand and denial of customs exemption, as service on the appellant was not proved.

Duty demand and denial of Notification No. 203/94-Cus relief were held unsustainable because the notice was not duly served on the appellant. The record showed that the notice had been addressed to a different firm, even though the appellant's postal address appeared on it, and correspondence misaddressed to another entity could not be treated as effective service. As service was the foundation for confirming the duty, the confirmation order could not stand and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and denial of the benefit under Notification No. 203/94-Cus could be sustained when the notice was not served on the appellant.

Analysis: The record showed that the notice had been addressed to a different firm, though the appellant's postal address was mentioned. On that basis, the appellant could not be treated as duly served, since correspondence misaddressed to another entity could not be expected to be acted upon by the appellant. The foundation for confirming duty was therefore lacking.

Conclusion: The order confirming duty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---