This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by Shri Deepesh Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Gupta, Prop. M/s Diamond Marble & Granites, Marble Mandi, 200 Ft By Pass Road, Alwar (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against Order No.IV(6)45/AE/Alwar/2018 dated 05.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by Assistant Commissioner(Anti Evasion), Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar (hereinafter also referred to as “the adjudicating authority”).

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s conveyance bearing Regn. No. RJ14 GC 3327 in movement was intercepted on 04.10.2018 at 8.30 AM at Sikandara Toll Plaza. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found:-

(a) 7010 Sq Ft of Marble Slab HSN Code 2515 were found excess on  physical verification.

(b) 2609 Sq Ft of Granite Slab HSN Code 6802 were found excess on physical verification.

(c) 59 Boxes of Granite Patti were found excess on physical verification.

2.2. On the basis of physical verification, the calculation were made and the total value of impugned goods found excess arrived at  ₹ 4,75,420/- on which GST payable was ₹ 85,576/-. Whereas, as per invoice produced by the person in-charge/ Driver of the conveyance, the total value of the impugned goods was  ₹ 1,71,510/-on which GST payable was ₹ 30,871/-. The impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of impugned goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act’ Act 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by issuing an order of detention in FORM GST MOV 06.

3. Accordingly, a show-cause-notice was issued to the appellant which culminated into the impugned order issued vide F.No.IV(6)45/AE/Alwar/2018 dated 05.10.2018 vide which the adjudicating authority apart from confirming demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 54,706/- confiscated the goods along with conveyance and also imposed fine and penalties. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport the goods were released after depositing of the duty, fine and penalty amount.

4. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal on various grounds which are summarized as under:

(i) That the marbles/granite slabs were in irregular seizes. Out of these irregular slabs the rectangular marble slabs are taken after cutting into rectangular sizes which normally comes much lower then the quantity actually available in irregular slabs whereas the bill is prepared and charged for the estimated actual recoverable marble slabs. This is  normal practice in the trade.

(ii) That the verification of quantity available on the truck was done on estimated basis and that too was of irregular sizes which was bond to result in excess stock. Therefore a case was booked against the appellant. The measurement slips of the marble slabs have not been provided to the appellants and even not considered by the adjudicating authority while passing the order in original. The appellant has requested to call for the measurement slips to reach the conclusion of actual goods carried in the truck.

5. Personal Hearing in the case has been conducted on 27.03.2019. Shri Pankaj Malik, Chartered Accountant appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the appellant and explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case. He further requested to provide the details of verification of quantity conducted by the adjudicating authority.

6. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submission made in the appeal memorandum as well at the time of personal hearing.

7. On perusal of the facts available on record, I find that the appellants contention that the marbles/granite slabs were in irregular seizes and out of these irregular slabs, the rectangular slabs are taken after, cutting which normally comes much lower than the quantity actually available in irregular slabs. The bill is prepared and charged for actual recoverable marble slabs. This is normal practice in the trade. This plea of the appellant is not acceptable as I find that the difference between quantity mentioned in the invoices and quantity found in Physical Verification is huge and as abnormal difference was found when compared to the invoices available at the time of interception of conveyance with the quantity mentioned in the invoice No.40 dated 03.10,2018 Marble Slab was shown 5955 Sq Ft, whereas 7010 Sq Ft of excess Marble Slab was found on physical verification like wise Granite Slab were shown 450 Sq Ft in invoice No.40 dated 03.10.2018 whereas, 2609 Sq Ft of Excess Granite Stab were found on physical verification and also Granite Patti Box were shown 150 Box in invoice No. 35 dated 03.10.2018 whereas, 59 Boxes of Granite Patti were found in excess. In any case after cutting the irregular shape of Marble Slabs in a rectangular shape wastage cannot be generated more than 100%. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly taken into account the quantity found excess in Physical verification while passing the impugned order.

8. The appellant has submitted in the grounds of appeal that the measurement slip has not been provided to them and requested to call for the measurement slip and decide the case on the basis of the slip. The adjudicating authority was asked to produce the measurement slip. He furnished that the physical verification of quantity of goods was carried out in presence of the appellant and Shri Rajendra Meena, the person in-charge of the vehicle, as evident from FORM MOV-04 dated 04.102018. Form-04 is prescribed form for the physical verification report under the statute. I find that the appellant as well as Shri Rajendra Meena, the owner/person in-charge of the vehicle have placed their signature on this document after due perusal and copy of the report was also handed over to Shri Rajendra Meena. Also, the quantity found excess was duly accepted in the Form MOV-04 by the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance. Therefore, appellant’s contention on this ground is not acceptable.

9. In view of the above discussion and findings I hereby reject the appeal filled by the appellant