9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri 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 seized for the non-accountal of the same in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that the department has not adduced any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 with consequential relief to the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
