https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92842 The Judge set aside the Order-in-Appeal confirming a duty demand based on stock verification discrepancies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand despite expressing doubts about the correctness of figures, citing the appellant's acceptance in the Panchnama. However, the Judge found a contradiction in granting benefit of doubt for penalties and confiscation but not for the duty demand. Emphasizing uniform application of the benefit of doubt, the Judge concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits for the appellants under the law. en-us Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:38:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92842 The Judge set aside the Order-in-Appeal confirming a duty demand based on stock verification discrepancies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand despite expressing doubts about the correctness of figures, citing the appellant's acceptance in the Panchnama. However, the Judge found a contradiction in granting benefit of doubt for penalties and confiscation but not for the duty demand. Emphasizing uniform application of the benefit of doubt, the Judge concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits for the appellants under the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92842