Provisional attachment upheld; no independent probe required into predicate offence; Section 5(1) requirements satisfied, temporal acquisition not a s...
CESTAT set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellant's appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication or show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts and therefore Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penal provisions under Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Payment of CVD and SAD by the appellant was suo motu to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorization and a deficiency letter is merely an opportunity to rectify bona fide defaults, not initiation of adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund applications afresh.
CESTAT set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellant's appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal held that there was no adjudication or show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts and therefore Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penal provisions under Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Payment of CVD and SAD by the appellant was suo motu to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorization and a deficiency letter is merely an opportunity to rectify bona fide defaults, not initiation of adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund applications afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
