https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119994 The Tribunal upheld the demand for customs duty on pilfered undenatured alcohol, amounting to Rs. 67,10,176, finding the appellant liable under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act. Despite the goods being confiscated by customs, the appellant, as the custodian, was held responsible for the shortage caused by pilferage while in their custody. The delay in reporting the pilferage and re-weighment did not absolve the appellant of liability, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The decision was finalized on 20-9-2006 by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:18:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119994 The Tribunal upheld the demand for customs duty on pilfered undenatured alcohol, amounting to Rs. 67,10,176, finding the appellant liable under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act. Despite the goods being confiscated by customs, the appellant, as the custodian, was held responsible for the shortage caused by pilferage while in their custody. The delay in reporting the pilferage and re-weighment did not absolve the appellant of liability, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The decision was finalized on 20-9-2006 by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119994