This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by M/s. Ganesh Ceramics, East of 70 Fit, IOC Road, Patna (Bihar) (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against Order dated 10-10-2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar (hereinafter also referred to as “the adjudicating authority”).

Brief facts of the case :-

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is having GSTIN No. 10AHNPV9499A1ZX engaged in business of trading activities in Ceramic Tiles. On 9-10-2018 at 9.45 AM at Sikandara Toll Plaza at NH 11, the officers of CGST Division, Sikar had intercepted in movement [of] the appellant’s conveyance bearing Regn. No. RJ19 GD 7222. The statement of the Driver/person in-charge was also recorded on 9-10-2018. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and following discrepancies were found :-

(a)     671 Boxes of Tiles containing 4 tiles in each were found in excess.

(b)     Bill was generated on undervaluation with intent to evade tax. During physical verification, it was found that MRP of boxes were marked as ₹ 600/- but the transaction value shown in Invoice was only ₹ 170/- per box.

2.2 In view of the above, the impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of goods were without any valid documents accordingly the same were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by issuing an order of detention in FORM GST MOV-06. As the appellant has not objected and refused for any notice and personal hearing in the instant case. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 91,863/- confiscated the goods along with conveyance and imposed fine and penalties. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing of duty, fine and penalty amount.

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

(i)      That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant.

(ii)    That no show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the notice issued was non-speaking as the same did not disclose the material facts on the basis of which the notice was issued.

(iii)   That as per free scheme to support in the market (on purchases of one box then one box will be free) provided by the company.

(iv)   That the adjudicating authority has determined the value of goods without conducting any enquiry for the genuineness or say compare the product in the market with same product or say without any basis totally on presumption basis.

4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 27-3-2019. Shri Sharod Asawa, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and requested for adjournment. Next date for Personal Hearing in the instant case was given on 24-4-2019 at 1230 Hrs. He appeared for personal hearing and explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum and also submitted additional written submission dated 24-4-2019 and requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing.

6. On perusal of the facts on record, I find that the appellant’s contention that no reasonable opportunity was provided and no show cause notice was issued to them while passing the impugned order, is not correct as the appellant himself and person in-charge of the conveyance have confessed and duly acknowledged the proceedings of the adjudicating authority and did not object the proceedings of the case and requested to the adjudicating authority that they did not want any personal hearing and notice in the matter. The appellant’s submission that as per free scheme to support the market (on purchases of one box then one box will be free) was provided by the company cannot be accepted in absence of any supporting evidence/document. Also on perusal of Tax Invoice, E-way Bill and Challan the quantity mentioned in these documents are 685 boxes only. It has not been mentioned anything about excess quantity of boxes in these documents, which clearly indicates that this argument is an afterthought produced by the appellant hence, not acceptable. The appellant further submitted that the adjudicating authority has determined the value of the goods without conducting any enquiry for the genuineness or say compare the product in the market with same product or say without any basis totally on presumption basis, cannot be entertained as they themselves requested the adjudicating authority to release the goods and vehicle after deposition of GST, Penalty & Redemption Fine as determined in the impugned order. They have not challenged the value at the time of release of the impugned goods and conveyance which reflects that they have accepted the value as determined in the impugned order. They never objected the value determined by the adjudicating authority and deposited the same. Further, the MRP of boxes were marked as ₹ 600/- whereas, the value shown in the Invoice was only ₹ 170/- which indicates the huge difference between MRP and Invoice value and clearly reflect the extent of undervaluation of the goods. They have not submitted anything concrete to support their contention. Therefore, appellant’s above contention is not acceptable.

7. In view of the above discussion and findings I hereby reject the appeal filed by the appellant.