https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99981 Service of an order at an importer's old address, despite notice of change of address, did not constitute valid service for limitation purposes, so the limitation period could not run from that defective dispatch. A customs demand raised nearly four years after payment of duty, and referable only to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was also beyond limitation because no extended period was properly invoked. On that reasoning, the demand and its confirmation were held unsustainable in law and liable to fail. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:54:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99981 Service of an order at an importer's old address, despite notice of change of address, did not constitute valid service for limitation purposes, so the limitation period could not run from that defective dispatch. A customs demand raised nearly four years after payment of duty, and referable only to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was also beyond limitation because no extended period was properly invoked. On that reasoning, the demand and its confirmation were held unsustainable in law and liable to fail. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99981