Judge grants relief to appellant on duty demand, setting aside impugned order, citing precedent.

The judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant regarding the demand for the amount taken as suo-moto credit. The judge found that the appellant, who exported goods under LUT, was not required to pay duty and had paid duty twice over. Relying on the decision in a similar case involving Motorola India Pvt. Limited, the judge held that this precedent prevailed over the contradictory decision of a Larger Bench. As no contrary judgment was presented, the appellant's appeal was successful, and any consequential relief was granted.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of an amount taken as suo-moto credit by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant took credit against duty for goods cleared for export under LUT without payment of duty. Subsequently, they debited the duty and filed a rebate claim, which was rejected.
2. The adjudicating authority confirmed all charges framed under the show cause notice.
3. The first appellate authority upheld the order in original after not agreeing with the contentions raised by the appellant.
4. The appellant argued that they were not required to pay duty as goods were exported under LUT, and the credit taken was for inputs used in manufacturing exported goods cleared under Bond.
5. The Revenue contended that the suo-moto credit taken by the appellant was not acceptable based on a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
6. The appellant referred to contradictory decisions and argued that the decision of the Larger Bench was incorrect.
7. The judge considered the submissions and perused the record to determine the issue involved.
8. The main issue was the confirmation of demand for the amount taken as suo-moto credit by the appellant, believing they had paid the duty twice over.
9. It was undisputed that the appellant was not required to pay duty on clearances made for export under LUT.
10. The judge reviewed the decision of the Larger Bench in BDH Industries Limited and found it incorrect based on a similar case involving Motorola India Pvt. Limited.
11. The judge cited the case of Motorola India Pvt. Limited where a refund was allowed for an excess amount paid due to a clerical error, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
12. As no contrary judgment was presented, the judge held that the decision in Motorola India Pvt. Limited would prevail over the Larger Bench decision in BDH Industries Limited.
13. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the judge's decision based on the interpretation of the law and previous judgments.

---