https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43972 The court found the initial notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Internal Audit Department, Madras to be invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. However, regarding subsequent notices issued by the Superintendent of Customs, Bangalore, the court held that the question of whether they were time-barred would be determined during adjudication, as the notices indicated possible wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. The court directed the Tribunal to adjust its remand order accordingly, keeping open the issue of the timeliness of the subsequent notices. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:50:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43972 The court found the initial notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Internal Audit Department, Madras to be invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. However, regarding subsequent notices issued by the Superintendent of Customs, Bangalore, the court held that the question of whether they were time-barred would be determined during adjudication, as the notices indicated possible wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer. The court directed the Tribunal to adjust its remand order accordingly, keeping open the issue of the timeliness of the subsequent notices. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43972