https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325004 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand of a differential duty was time-barred as the notice was not served within the limitation period. Despite the department's dispatch of the demand notice, it was sent to the wrong address, causing a delay in receipt by the appellant. Emphasizing the necessity for proper service on importers, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential relief, citing legal precedent and highlighting the importance of adhering to time limitations for issuing demand notices. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325004 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand of a differential duty was time-barred as the notice was not served within the limitation period. Despite the department's dispatch of the demand notice, it was sent to the wrong address, causing a delay in receipt by the appellant. Emphasizing the necessity for proper service on importers, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential relief, citing legal precedent and highlighting the importance of adhering to time limitations for issuing demand notices. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325004