AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant. Accordingly I have heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders. Duty of Rs. 1,01,760/- has been confirmed against the appellant and penalty of an equivalent amount has been imposed upon them. 2. Sequal to a raid conducted in the factory premises of the appellants, four bags of Pan Masala containing 30 kgs. each were seize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was to the tune of Rs. 1,01,760/-. The adjudicator has also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,01,760/- on the appellants u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the said order before Commissioner (Appeals) has not met with success and hence this appeal before the Tribunal along with the stay petition. 3. The appellants have contended in their appeal memo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory during the said period. There is no evidence of receipt of other raw materials required for the manufacture of pan masala in question. As such I find that the evidence on record may create a doubt in favour of the appellant but cannot take the place of legal evidence on record. As such extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal w....