https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361738 The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to deny the appellant credit for Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid, finding the appellant's actions, including undervaluing imported goods and approaching the Settlement Commission, indicated a malafide intention to evade duty payment. The denial was based on Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which allows credit unless duty payment was due to fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. The Settlement Commission's order granting immunity did not absolve the appellant of malafide intent, leading to the rejection of the appeal. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:42:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361738 The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to deny the appellant credit for Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid, finding the appellant's actions, including undervaluing imported goods and approaching the Settlement Commission, indicated a malafide intention to evade duty payment. The denial was based on Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which allows credit unless duty payment was due to fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. The Settlement Commission's order granting immunity did not absolve the appellant of malafide intent, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361738