https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786106 Maintainability of a demand under Section 28 was contested where assessment remained provisional and reliedupon documents (RUDs) were allegedly not furnished with the showcause notice, raising procedural fairness and disclosure issues; the adjudicator's record contradicted his assertion that RUDs were supplied. Reliance on a prior Chennai Bench order supporting setaside of similar demands was invoked. Consequently the tribunal set aside the duty demands, appropriation of deposits, imposed penalties and confiscation of imported recycled LDPE granules, and directed consequential reliefs to the appellants. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786106 Maintainability of a demand under Section 28 was contested where assessment remained provisional and reliedupon documents (RUDs) were allegedly not furnished with the showcause notice, raising procedural fairness and disclosure issues; the adjudicator's record contradicted his assertion that RUDs were supplied. Reliance on a prior Chennai Bench order supporting setaside of similar demands was invoked. Consequently the tribunal set aside the duty demands, appropriation of deposits, imposed penalties and confiscation of imported recycled LDPE granules, and directed consequential reliefs to the appellants. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786106