https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97248 The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act due to loss/pilferage while goods were in custody of a custodian. The appellant argued that the burden of proof for proving pilferage lies with the Department and had not been discharged. The judge found that crucial evidence, the import bonding register, was not presented before the lower authorities, leading to a remand of the case for a fresh examination to allow the appellant to substantiate their claim. The appeal was disposed of with this decision, emphasizing the need for a re-examination of the issue. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:53:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97248 The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act due to loss/pilferage while goods were in custody of a custodian. The appellant argued that the burden of proof for proving pilferage lies with the Department and had not been discharged. The judge found that crucial evidence, the import bonding register, was not presented before the lower authorities, leading to a remand of the case for a fresh examination to allow the appellant to substantiate their claim. The appeal was disposed of with this decision, emphasizing the need for a re-examination of the issue. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97248