TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransporter and packing list was also accompanying the goods. In so far as E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No.731043011329 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-9189 in place of vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter,' the transporter has placed another vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 in place of Registration No. RJ-14-GF-9189. As soon as the mistake came to the notice of the appellant the same mistake was rectified by the appellant and got generated the E-Way Bill at 05.19 mentioning therein the vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 - thus, all the necessary statutory requirement under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules was fulfilled by the appellant except mentioning corrected vehicle number at the time of interception, though this mistake was corrected soon after it came to notice. Thus, there appears no ill intention to evade the tax and just mere technical mistake. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing an order% of detention in FORM GST MOV 06 and the same was served on the person in charge of the conveyance on 03.12.2018. As the appellant has refused for personal hearing in the instant case. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd., Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida (UP) as owner of the impugned goods in conveyance has come forward to pay tax and penalty, claiming the goods in the conveyance. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating. authority apart from confirming the demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/- (CGST amounting to ₹ 38,136/- + SGST amounting to ₹ 38,136/-) also imposed penalty equal to 100% amount of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/-, The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing of Tax and penalty amount. The owner of the goods i.e. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd, having GSTIN 08AAACL1745Q1Z4 has deposited the Tax (CGST and SGST @ 9% of ₹ 38,136/- each) vide Challan No. CPIN 18120800016270 dated 06.12.2018 and penalty equal to 100% tax amount of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/- payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CGST Rules and instead 'cited other documents which were not relevant, solely on a presumption that vehicle number was updated at the time of interception, which is apparently cot correct. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the vehicle was intercepted at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018 but valid E-way Bill was not generated on or before the time of interception, and LGEIL updated the vehicle number after the interception at 05.27 PM. (v) that it was categorically mentioned and stated before the learned adjudicating authority that due to change in vehicle to be used for transportation of the shipment, the E-way Bill was generated at 4.38 PM with vehicle No.RJ14-GF-9189 before the commencement of goods was updated to vehicle no RJ-14-GF-6831 at 5:27 PM by the person-in-charge of the warehouse. (vi) That it was also mentioned that for making load plan in LGEIL's system, vehicle number on which delivery is proposed is mandatorily required. Basis the information received from the transporter initially, vehicle number RJ-14-GF-9189 was entered and accordingly the load plan got prepared in the system. However, due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 48 (Allahabad) = 2018 (10) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Rajavat Steel Another V State of UP 3 Others, [2018 (18 GSTL 814 (All)] = 2018 (9) TMI 1767 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Board Circular No,64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018. M/s Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut 2005 TIOL-118 SC-CX = 2005 (9) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT 4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13.03.2020. Shri Jatin Harjai, Advocate and Miss Neha Sethi, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant and explained the case in detail and also submitted additional written submission dated 13.03.2020 along with case laws and requested to decide the case accordingly. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum as well as additional written submission dated 13.03.2020 submitted at the time of personal hearing. 6. I find that department had made the case against the appellant on the ground that the Valid E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. The pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. In case such person does not carry the mentioned documents, there is no doubt that a contravention of the provisions of the law takes place and the provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act are invocable. Further, it may be noted that the non-furnishing of information in Part B of Form GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods by road as Explanation (2) to Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometers within the State or Union territory to or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the consignor or the consignee, as the case may be. Further, in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia in the following situations: (a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor, or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; (b) Error in the pin-code. but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake was rectified by the appellant and got generated the E-Way Bill at 05.19 mentioning therein the vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831. In view of above, I find that all the necessary statutory requirement under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules was fulfilled by the appellant except mentioning corrected vehicle number at the time of interception, though this mistake was corrected soon after it came to notice. Thus, there appears no ill intention to evade the tax and just mere technical mistake. 9, In the instant case before me, the appellant has submitted copies of both the E-way Bill No.731043011329 one which was generated at 04.38 PM prior to the commencement of movement of the goods in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ-14-GF-9189 in which the goods were supposed to be delivered/loaded to the customer and other one E-way Bill No.731043011329 which was generated at 05.19 PM after realizing their mistake about the vehicle number in which vehicle registration number was correctly shown as RJ-14-GF-6831, the same vehicle was got intercepted in movement at Naya Khera, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur by the Officers of CGST Division-B, at 05.27PM. Though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
