https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752714 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for further review. It held that the appellant was eligible for a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the payment of CVD and SAD was for regularizing excess import without any suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no basis for invoking Rule 9(1)(b) or (bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as there was no evidence of suppression or malicious intent. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with a more detailed examination of the refund claim. en-us Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2024 08:25:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752714 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for further review. It held that the appellant was eligible for a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the payment of CVD and SAD was for regularizing excess import without any suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no basis for invoking Rule 9(1)(b) or (bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as there was no evidence of suppression or malicious intent. The Adjudicating Authority was tasked with a more detailed examination of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752714