https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93597 CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication orders and held that DTA clearances by the EOU-appellant qualified as "similar goods" and were eligible for concessional treatment under the notifications relied upon, so the differential excise demands based on reclassification and denial of exemption were unsustainable. The Tribunal construed Para 6.8(a) of the FTP and relevant excise law to conclude the goods fell within the same tariff description and usage, and the revenue failed to establish excess DTA sales. Consequently the demand for differential duty and the reclassification were quashed, and the revenue's appeal seeking confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty was dismissed. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93597 CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication orders and held that DTA clearances by the EOU-appellant qualified as "similar goods" and were eligible for concessional treatment under the notifications relied upon, so the differential excise demands based on reclassification and denial of exemption were unsustainable. The Tribunal construed Para 6.8(a) of the FTP and relevant excise law to conclude the goods fell within the same tariff description and usage, and the revenue failed to establish excess DTA sales. Consequently the demand for differential duty and the reclassification were quashed, and the revenue's appeal seeking confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty was dismissed. Highlights Central Excise Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93597