https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756770 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further processing of the appellant's refund claim concerning CVD and SAD under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of suppression or non-payment of duty, rendering Rule 9(1)(b) or (bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inapplicable. The absence of a demand notice or adjudication precluded penal provisions. The judgment underscores the necessity for thorough fact verification in refund claims, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements before penal provisions are applied. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Aug 2024 08:55:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756770 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further processing of the appellant's refund claim concerning CVD and SAD under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of suppression or non-payment of duty, rendering Rule 9(1)(b) or (bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inapplicable. The absence of a demand notice or adjudication precluded penal provisions. The judgment underscores the necessity for thorough fact verification in refund claims, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements before penal provisions are applied. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756770