PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The CESTAT held that the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the corrigendum issued for a demand related to shipments dated 10.05.2008 constituted part of the original show cause notice, as adjudication commenced only after its issuance and the appellant's response. However, since the corrigendum was issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal distinguished this case from instances where an incorrect provision is cited but the claim remains valid, emphasizing that the limitation under Section 28 is strictly one year from the relevant date. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest on five shipping bills was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.