<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (10) TMI 226 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53590</link>
    <description>The Tribunal modified the impugned order regarding demands of Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) on the assessee. The appeals challenged the validity of demand notices served for ADD and the interpretation of service within the period of limitation under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that one demand notice was time-barred as it was dispatched after the limitation period, leading to the appeal being allowed. Another notice was upheld as it was dispatched within the limitation period. A third notice, despite a delay in service, was deemed to have been served within the limitation period. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a detailed analysis of each demand notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:32:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 226 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53590</link>
      <description>The Tribunal modified the impugned order regarding demands of Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) on the assessee. The appeals challenged the validity of demand notices served for ADD and the interpretation of service within the period of limitation under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that one demand notice was time-barred as it was dispatched after the limitation period, leading to the appeal being allowed. Another notice was upheld as it was dispatched within the limitation period. A third notice, despite a delay in service, was deemed to have been served within the limitation period. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a detailed analysis of each demand notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>