9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration number under the GST Act; and the transport receipt of the transporter 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 05.18 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No. 741043010569 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-6858 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. RJ14-GF-6705. 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 05.28 P.M. mentioning therein the Vehicle Registration Number RJ-14-GF-6858. 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 technic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M GST MOV 06 and the same was served on the person-In-charge of the conveyance on 3-12-2018. 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 ₹ 2,12,796/- (CGST amounting to ₹ 1,06,398/- + SGST amounting to ₹ 1,06,398/-) [also] imposed penalty equal to 100% amount of Tax amounting to ₹ 2,12,796/-. 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 ₹ 1,06,398/- each) vide Challan No. CPIN 18120800016240, dated 6-12-2018 and penalty equal to 100% Tax amounting to ₹ 2,12,796/- payable vide Challan No. 18120800016240, dated 6-12-2018 total amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at vehicle number was updated at the time of interception, which is apparently not correct. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the vehicle was intercepted at 05.18 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 05.28 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 4.37 PM with Vehicle No. RJ14-GF-6705 before the commencement of goods was updated to Vehicle No. RJ-14-GF-6858 at 05:28 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-6705 was entered and accordingly the load plan got prepared in the system. However, due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter, he placed another vehicle bearing Number RJ-14-GF-6858 in place of Vehicle No. RJ14-GF-6705 and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.). 4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13-3-2020. Shri Jatin Harjai, Advocate and Ms. Neha Sethi, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant and explained the case in detail and also submitted additional written submission dated 13-3-2020 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 13-3-2020 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 05.18 PM on 30-11-2018. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. The Person In-charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6858 at 05.28 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 up to fifty kilometres 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 the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; (c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; (d) Error in one or two digits of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioning 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. 10. In the instant case before me, the appellant has submitted copies of both the E-way Bill No. 741043010569 one which was generated at 04.37 PM prior to the commencement of movement of the goods in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ-14-GF-6705 in which the goods were supposed to be delivered/loaded to the customer and other one E-way Bill No. 741043010569 which was generated at 05.28 PM after realizing their mistake about the vehicle number in which vehicle registration number was correctly shown as RJ-14-GF-6858, the same vehicle was got intercepted in movement at Naya Khera, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur by the Officers of CGST Division-B, at 05.18 PM. Though the appellant has made a error in mentioning the vehicle number they himself admitted that due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter they could not change the vehicle number. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
