Page 200 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

118 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
pugned order”) passed by Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Central
Goods & Services 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 bear-
ing Regn. No. RJ14 GC 3327 in movement was intercepted on 4-10-2018 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 Services 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 Rs. 4,75,420/- on
which GST payable was Rs. 85,576/-. Wheres, as per invoice produced by the
person in-charge/Driver of the conveyance, the total value of the impugned
goods was Rs. 1,71,510/- on which GST payable was Rs. 30,871/-. The impugned
goods and the conveyance used for the movement of impugned goods were de-
tained 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 of the Central Goods and
Services 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 5-10-2018 vide which the adjudicating authority
apart from confirming demand of Tax amounting to Rs. 54,706/- confiscated the
goods along with conveyance and also imposed fine and penalties. The im-
pugned 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 pre-
pared 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 adjudi-
cating authority while passing the order in original. The appellant
has requested to call for the measurement slips to reach the conclu-
sion of actual goods carried in the truck.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  200