https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101658 The appeal was held within time because the date of communication of the impugned order was accepted as 14-3-2001, there being no material from the department to prove an earlier communication. On the stay application, the demand stemmed from denial of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. on alleged inadmissible Modvat credit, and the transferee of advance licences was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation based on earlier Tribunal decisions. As a result, the limitation objection was rejected and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, together with stay of recovery, was granted pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:34:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101658 The appeal was held within time because the date of communication of the impugned order was accepted as 14-3-2001, there being no material from the department to prove an earlier communication. On the stay application, the demand stemmed from denial of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. on alleged inadmissible Modvat credit, and the transferee of advance licences was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation based on earlier Tribunal decisions. As a result, the limitation objection was rejected and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, together with stay of recovery, was granted pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101658