https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779114 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeals by remand, holding that rejection of refund claims for CVD and SAD under Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) CCR 2004 and Section 142 CGST was unsustainable. There was no show-cause or adjudication alleging suppression; the duties were paid suo moto due to excess imports against an Advance Authorization. A deficiency letter does not initiate adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide refund applications afresh. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 13:05:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779114 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeals by remand, holding that rejection of refund claims for CVD and SAD under Rule 9(1)(b)/(bb) CCR 2004 and Section 142 CGST was unsustainable. There was no show-cause or adjudication alleging suppression; the duties were paid suo moto due to excess imports against an Advance Authorization. A deficiency letter does not initiate adjudication. Matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide refund applications afresh. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779114