https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120271 A recovery rule made under the Customs Act cannot override the Act's mandatory demand mechanism, so duty demanded after denial of exemption must be raised under Section 28 rather than Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996. The demand was therefore treated as validly made by the Deputy Commissioner. For limitation, display of the Order-in-Original on the customs house notice board constituted communication of the order, and later receipt of another copy did not extend time. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was accordingly held to be time-barred and beyond the condonable period. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:50:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120271 A recovery rule made under the Customs Act cannot override the Act's mandatory demand mechanism, so duty demanded after denial of exemption must be raised under Section 28 rather than Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996. The demand was therefore treated as validly made by the Deputy Commissioner. For limitation, display of the Order-in-Original on the customs house notice board constituted communication of the order, and later receipt of another copy did not extend time. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was accordingly held to be time-barred and beyond the condonable period. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120271