https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93837 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. en-us Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:29:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93837 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. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93837