https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81807 Service of a customs demand notice within the six-month period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held to be essential, and mere issuance or despatch was insufficient. The original notice bore a receipt date showing service after expiry of the statutory period, and no rebuttal evidence was produced to displace that date. On that basis, the demand proceedings were treated as time-barred and unsustainable. The distinction between issuing a notice and proving its service within time was decisive, and the lower authorities' orders were set aside. en-us Mon, 17 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:30:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81807 Service of a customs demand notice within the six-month period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held to be essential, and mere issuance or despatch was insufficient. The original notice bore a receipt date showing service after expiry of the statutory period, and no rebuttal evidence was produced to displace that date. On that basis, the demand proceedings were treated as time-barred and unsustainable. The distinction between issuing a notice and proving its service within time was decisive, and the lower authorities' orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81807