https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89759 A customs duty demand on stores lying on a vessel converted from foreign-run to coastal-run could not be sustained because it rested entirely on a public notice that had already been quashed, eliminating the foundation of the show cause notice and demand. The demand was also time-barred under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the execution of a bond under section 143 did not displace or override that statutory limitation. The result was that the duty demand remained untenable. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89759 A customs duty demand on stores lying on a vessel converted from foreign-run to coastal-run could not be sustained because it rested entirely on a public notice that had already been quashed, eliminating the foundation of the show cause notice and demand. The demand was also time-barred under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the execution of a bond under section 143 did not displace or override that statutory limitation. The result was that the duty demand remained untenable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89759