https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94781 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant. It found that the appellant should account for the quantity actually received in the shore tank, losses during storage and transit were plausible, and the demand for differential duty was not justified. The tribunal rejected the argument that the demand was time-barred under the Customs Act, 1962, as it was issued within the permissible timeframe. en-us Wed, 19 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:17:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94781 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant. It found that the appellant should account for the quantity actually received in the shore tank, losses during storage and transit were plausible, and the demand for differential duty was not justified. The tribunal rejected the argument that the demand was time-barred under the Customs Act, 1962, as it was issued within the permissible timeframe. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94781