TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levelled in the show cause notice, the submission of Sri K. D. Nag that the goods sent from Surat to Kanpur for export did not carry e-way bills as admitted by the respondents in their memo of appeal, cannot be accepted as it is well settled that the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice should be clear and specific and the findings cannot go beyond the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice. In the present case, the show cause notice is confined to the allegations against the respondents receiving the supplies of goods without the e-way bills, which fact has been dealt with by the appellate authority after perusing the invoices that the goods were supplied to the respondents from Surat to Surat and thus, the notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-I, Lucknow whereby the claim of the respondents was rejected. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents moved an application seeking refund of the CGST through their application dated 20.02.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.1,84,17,252/- on the tax paid inputs of the Goods, which was ultimately exported by the respondents. It is claimed that after verifying the claims, prima-facie an acknowledgment was issued to the respondents and a provisional order dated 04.03.2020 allowing partial refund amounting to Rs.1,65,75,526.80 was granted on a provisional basis out of the total refund claimed. When the claims of the respondent were subjected to scrutiny, the department was of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of the goods and generation of e-way bill by the registered person, which has not been done. This fact was revealed to the department on the scrutinizing of GSTR-2A return filed by the respondents. It was further alleged that all theses three suppliers named above had done huge volume of business in a very short span of time and subsequently their registration was canceled. The respondents were called upon to show cause and to produce the invoices raised by the said suppliers / taxpayers and e-way bills generated in the process so as to ascertain if the goods were indeed received by the respondents and the Input Tax Credit has been claimed in accordance with the Section 16(2) of the CGST Act 2017. It has been alleged that despite a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Act, 2017. (v). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (vi). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(viii) of the CGST Act, 2017 for obtaining refund fraudulently, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (vii). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(xiv) of the CGST Act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the IGST Act, 2017. The respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Lucknow wherein it was specifically stated that the inputs received by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of creation of the statutory tribunal. Sri K. D. Nag appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that in view of the averments as made in the memo of the appeal, the respondents admit that the goods were transported from Surat to ICD Panki Kanpur for its further export without the e-way bills and in view of the statement as contained in the memo of appeal, the appellate authority has erred in allowing the appeal. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, a supplementary affidavit was filed duly sworn by one Sri Rakesh Srivastav wherein he had specifically stated that no e-way bills were ever annexed with the appeal and they were not produced before the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals). The said averments made in paragr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the show cause notice as issued to the petitioner had made three precise allegations that the supplier of the goods to the respondents had supplied the goods without generation of the e-way bills which was contrary to the E-Way Bill Rules and thus, the claim of the respondents was liable to be rejected. That being the nature of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, the submission of Sri K. D. Nag that the goods sent from Surat to Kanpur for export did not carry e-way bills as admitted by the respondents in their memo of appeal, cannot be accepted as it is well settled that the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice should be clear and specific and the findings cannot go beyond the allegations as levelled in the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
