TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeal filed after the order was sent to the earlier address could be rejected as barred by limitation in view of the manner of service; (ii) whether the customs demand, raised nearly four years after payment of duty and referable only to Section 28, was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed after the order was sent to the earlier address could be rejected as barred by limitation in view of the manner of service.
Analysis: The order had been sent to the importer's old address despite notice of change of address, and such dispatch did not amount to valid service. The relevant date for limitation could therefore not be treated as the date on which the order was first sent to the wrong address.
Conclusion: The finding of limitation based on service at the earlier address could not be sustained against the importer.
Issue (ii): Whether the customs demand, raised nearly four years after payment of duty and referable only to Section 28, was sustainable.
Analysis: The demand notice was issued almost four years after duty payment and did not invoke any extended period beyond a mere reference to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, the demand was beyond limitation and could not survive.
Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and was liable to fail.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the demand and its confirmation were held to be barred by limitation and unsustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 must be within limitation, and where the extended period is not properly invoked, a belated demand cannot survive; service of an order at an old address despite notice of change does not constitute valid service for limitation purposes.
TaxTMI 
