https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106136 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of M/s. Malhotra Steels (Bombay) Ltd.'s claim for refund of duty on imported goods, ruling that the requirements for applying sub-section (1) of Section 23 were not met. Despite evidence of a difference between manifested and received quantities, the Tribunal found that the loss or destruction did not occur before clearance for home consumption as required by the Act. Emphasizing the distinction between loss due to pilferage and other reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the shortage could not be definitively attributed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106136 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of M/s. Malhotra Steels (Bombay) Ltd.'s claim for refund of duty on imported goods, ruling that the requirements for applying sub-section (1) of Section 23 were not met. Despite evidence of a difference between manifested and received quantities, the Tribunal found that the loss or destruction did not occur before clearance for home consumption as required by the Act. Emphasizing the distinction between loss due to pilferage and other reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the shortage could not be definitively attributed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106136