Page 139 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : GANESH CERAMICS 353
the demand of Tax amounting to Rs. 91,863/- confiscated the goods along with
conveyance and imposed fine and penalties. The impugned goods and convey-
ance 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 no-
tice issued was non-speaking as the same did not disclose the mate-
rial 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 com-
pare 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 submis-
sions 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 conten-
tion 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 In-
voice, 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 submit-
ted that the adjudicating authority has determined the value of the goods with-
out 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 au-
thority to release the goods and vehicle after deposition of GST, Penalty & Re-
demption 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 de-
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  139