Reversal of credit on inputs removed as such follows the earlier duty-paid amount rule; contrary view treated as an apparent error.

Where inputs are removed as such after credit has been availed, the amount payable on reversal was held to follow the earlier line of authority that equated the reversal with the duty originally paid by the first manufacturer. In light of the Larger Bench decision supporting that approach, the contrary view taken in the earlier order was treated as an apparent error. The order was therefore corrected and withdrawn, with the Revenue's appeal dismissed and the assessee held entitled to consequential benefits, if any.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order allowing the Revenue's appeal suffered from an apparent error in light of the Larger Bench decision on the quantum payable when inputs are removed as such after availing credit, and what the final consequence should be.

Analysis: The earlier order had followed a view that the amount payable for reversal would be the same as the duty originally paid by the first manufacturer. In view of the Larger Bench ruling which followed the ratio of the earlier Supreme Court/Tribunal line of authority supporting that approach, the contrary view taken in the earlier order could not stand. The apparent error was therefore corrected and the earlier order was withdrawn.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee was entitled to the consequential benefits, if any.

---