No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

HomeIndirect TaxesNo Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes...

No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

01/04/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has set aside a duty demand of ₹51.8 lakh imposed on Container Corporation of India Limited, holding that there was no evidence to establish pilferage of imported goods while under its custody. The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta and P. V. Subba Rao ruled in…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Evidence of Pilferage

No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

Membership Required

Latest articles

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

More like this

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

About us

Company

Categories