TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of 'regular cargo'. Thus, the appellant has done this act deliberately and intentionally to evade the GST. Also the cargo departed from Delhi on 12.08 2018 at 11.00 A.M. whereas, the cargo intercepted by the CGST officers on 15.08.2018 at 11.50 A.M. The distance between Delhi and Jhunjhunu is about 220 km which the vehicle can cover in six hours. In this regard, the appellant could not give satisfactory reply as to how the vehicle has taken so much of time in reaching Jhunjhunu from Delhi. Three days is sufficient time for exercising second trip. The nature of the vehicle can not be changed irrespective of the goods loaded into it Any truck/vehicle can be either ODC OR REGULAR CARGO as it has been registered under Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33.(hereinafter also referred to as the appellant ) against Order in Original No. 01/GST/2018 dated 25.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-G, Sikar (hereinafter also referred to as the adjudicating authority ). 2. Brief Facts of the case 2.1 The appellant is having GSTIN No.07ALTPB6947K1ZH is engaged in Trading of FMCG and Pan Masala Products. On 15.08.2018, the officers, of the CGST Division-G, Sikar have intercepted a conveyance/vehicle bearing No. RJ 23 GB 3811 at Jhunjhunu. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Section 20 of the IGST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to release the same on payment of applicable tax and penalty under Section 129(1) (a) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act, 2017. Since the applicable tax IGST ₹ 5,49,010/- and Cess ₹ 11,76,450/- and equal penalty of ₹ 17,25,460/- had already been deposited vide CPIN No. 18090700016836 dated 05.09.2018. Further ordered to appropriate the same to the Govt exchequer and released the goods and conveyance i.e. Truck No. RJ 23GB 3811 ii) Imposed a penalty of ₹ 17,25,460/- on M/s Rajdhani Cargo Carriers, Chamber No. 10, Sangam Tower, Opp. Court, Sikar under Section 122(1)(xiv) of the Act. Since the amount of ₹ 17,25,460/- had been deposited vide CPIN No. 18090700016836 dated 05.09 2018 and ordered to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice specified in sub-section 3 of Section 129 shall be deemed to be concluded. (vi) The adjudicating authority did not give any specific finding against the above submission of the appellant hence the confirmation of the demand towards penalty under Section 122(2)(b) and 122(3) is required to be set aside. 5. Personal Hearing in the case has been conducted on 06.03.2019. Shri Gaurav Agarawal Chartered Accountant and Authorised Representative appeared for personal hearing. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds as mentioned in their appeal memo. He further requested to decide the case on the basis of records available. 6. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in their a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has not submitted any valid documents/reasons in their support at the time of investigation as well at the time of personal hearing. 8. Further, I also find force in the findings given in Para 5.5 by the adjudicating authority, wherein, the details of e-way bills for the said vehicle from common portal revealed that an E-way bill 741022787374 from Delhi to Bikaner (447 Km) carrying Tansen Pan Masala of M/s Genesh Enterprises, BG-234, Basement, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi was generated on 03.08.2018 with ODC' as the type of vehicle and the same was valid upto 26.08.2018. But the same vehicle was used again to supply of goods on 09.08.2018 against e-way bill No. 71 1023813091 from Parbatsar to Delhi which was valid up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has requested to set aside the confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 122 (2) (b) and Section 122 (3) of the Act. The appellant's contention is not acceptable as the transporter has violated the provisions of Section 122 (1) (xiv) for which penalty was imposed upon the transporter M/s Rajdhani Cargo Carriers and not upon the appellant hence appellant's submission that penalty was imposed under Section 122 (2) (b) on them is not correct, The penalty on the driver of the vehicle has been imposed for violation of Section 122 (3) (b) as he was knowing that the goods carried out by him has been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. In view of the above findings, I reject the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
