https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92831 The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92831 The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence. Highlights Customs Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92831