TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authority has recorded a finding that he has reason to believe that the evidence does not prove the claim of the appellant that the goods were exported and, therefore, the refund claim is not sustainable. It is rather doubtful as to whether the appellate authority could have rendered such findings since the appellant has already received input tax credit for valid export. This is also one of the errors which has crept in. In any event, the appellate authority could not have travelled beyond the allegation of the show cause notice as pointed out earlier, the show cause notice itself is defective on account of non-consideration of the submission of the appellant to the memo dated 27.01.2022 and non-consideration of the documents which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of business and additional place of business of the appellant were inspected by the authorities of the respective Department and the findings which emerged during the course of inspection conducted on 18.08.2021 was communicated to the appellant by memo dated 27.01.2022. In the said memo, various allegations have been made and the appellant was called upon to produce corroborative documents within the time frame. The list of documents which were directed to be produced are ten in number. It is further submitted that the appellant by representation dated 08.02.2022, sought for extension of time to reply to the memo dated 27.01.2022 and also sought for copies of the document. By reply to the memo no.160 dated 20.04.2022, the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter, the show cause notice could have been issued. Therefore, this is a fundamental error which has occurred. The appellant was probably under the presumption that the authority had kept silent regarding the documents submitted by it which, ultimately, led to passing of the final order dated 14.09.2021 wherein the authority has recorded that the appellant has not replied to the show cause notice. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz. the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Chinabazar and Rajakatra Charge. The appeal was dismissed. On a reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that the Appellate Authority has proceeded on a different footing by restricting the consideration of the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
