https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356549 Identical goods cleared to EOUs and against ICB could not be treated differently from duty-paid DTA clearances when the Department had accepted those DTA clearances on transaction value without insisting on reversal of corresponding CENVAT credit. On those facts, the demand for credit reversal and the related penalty were held unsustainable, because the Department could not adopt an inconsistent stand for the same goods merely by changing the characterisation of the removals. The cited High Court principle on removal of inputs as such supported this approach. The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was annulled, and consequential relief was granted. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356549 Identical goods cleared to EOUs and against ICB could not be treated differently from duty-paid DTA clearances when the Department had accepted those DTA clearances on transaction value without insisting on reversal of corresponding CENVAT credit. On those facts, the demand for credit reversal and the related penalty were held unsustainable, because the Department could not adopt an inconsistent stand for the same goods merely by changing the characterisation of the removals. The cited High Court principle on removal of inputs as such supported this approach. The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was annulled, and consequential relief was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356549