https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233845 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. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233845 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233845