<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (3) TMI 433 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107374</link>
    <description>A show cause notice under Section 28 had to be served within the prescribed period from the relevant date, and service within time was essential to sustain the demand. Even on the assumption that the sanction of refund of the security deposit was the relevant date, the notice had to be served on or before 3-2-2000. Mere tender of the envelope to the post office on 4-2-2000 did not amount to service within limitation, so the notice was time-barred and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:33:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 433 - CEGAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107374</link>
      <description>A show cause notice under Section 28 had to be served within the prescribed period from the relevant date, and service within time was essential to sustain the demand. Even on the assumption that the sanction of refund of the security deposit was the relevant date, the notice had to be served on or before 3-2-2000. Mere tender of the envelope to the post office on 4-2-2000 did not amount to service within limitation, so the notice was time-barred and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>