2020 (1) TMI 1301 - Commissioner - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of goods were without any valid documents - HELD 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant?
2. Whether a show cause notice was issued to the appellant?
3. Whether the value of goods was determined correctly?
4. Whether the appellant's submission regarding the free scheme provided by the company is valid?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contended that no reasonable opportunity was provided to them. However, upon review, it was found that the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance did not object to the proceedings and explicitly stated they did not want a personal hearing or notice. This led to the conclusion that the appellant's claim of lack of opportunity was not valid.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that no show cause notice was issued to them, and the notice provided did not disclose material facts. The authority found that the appellant did not challenge the proceedings at the time and did not provide any evidence to support their claim. Therefore, this argument was deemed invalid.

Issue 3:
Regarding the determination of the value of goods, the appellant claimed that it was done without proper enquiry or basis. However, the authority noted that the appellant did not contest the value during the release of goods and even deposited the amount as per the impugned order. The discrepancy between the MRP and the invoice value indicated significant undervaluation, further weakening the appellant's argument.

Issue 4:
The appellant mentioned a free scheme provided by the company to support the market. However, due to the lack of supporting evidence or documents, this claim was not accepted. The absence of any mention of excess quantity in official documents also discredited this argument as an afterthought.

In conclusion, after a thorough review of the case records and submissions, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected. The findings indicated that the appellant's contentions lacked substantial evidence and did not hold up under scrutiny.