https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776080 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the corrigendum issued to the original show cause notice was integral to the adjudication process, which commenced only after the corrigendum's issuance and reply. The tribunal found that the original notice lacked reference to the proper legal provision, and the demand raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act was time-barred, as limitation under Section 28 is one year from the relevant date. Since the corrigendum was served in 2013 for shipments made in 2008, the demand was barred by limitation. Consequently, the order confirming duty demand with interest on the five shipping bills dated 10.05.2008 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776080 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the corrigendum issued to the original show cause notice was integral to the adjudication process, which commenced only after the corrigendum's issuance and reply. The tribunal found that the original notice lacked reference to the proper legal provision, and the demand raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act was time-barred, as limitation under Section 28 is one year from the relevant date. Since the corrigendum was served in 2013 for shipments made in 2008, the demand was barred by limitation. Consequently, the order confirming duty demand with interest on the five shipping bills dated 10.05.2008 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776080