Central excise demand fails where duty was already paid and the Revenue relied on inconsistent theories about diversion of goods.

Central excise duty demand was found unsustainable where duty had already been paid on the clearances and the Revenue advanced inconsistent theories about the movement of goods. If no goods were sent to the named dealer, the duty demand could not rest on that premise; if the goods were diverted elsewhere, duty had already been discharged on clearance. Because the demand lacked a consistent factual and legal basis, confirmation of the duty demand could not be sustained. The respondent therefore succeeded on the issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty could be sustained when the goods were alleged not to have been sent to the named dealer, but duty had already been paid on the clearances.

Analysis: The respondent was found to have paid duty on the clearances in question. The Revenue's case proceeded on two inconsistent bases: if no goods were moved at all, no duty demand could arise on that premise; if the goods were diverted elsewhere, duty had already been discharged on the clearances. In view of this inconsistency, no sustainable basis remained for confirming the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the respondent succeeded on the issue.

---