9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "the impugned order") passed by Assistant Commissioner (AE), 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 on 9-10-2017 at. 08.30 AM a conveyance bearing Registration No. RJ-19-GF-6348 was intercepted in movement at Sikandara Toll Plaza, by the Officers of CGST Commissionerate, Alwar. The statement of the Driver/Person-in-Charge, of the vehicle 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 the following discrepancies were found :- (a) Bill was gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Tiles, 3401, Opp. : Water Tank, Jaiprakash Nagar, Bariatu, Ranchi-834 009 as owner of the impugned goods has come forward to pay short paid IGST, penalty and redemption fine on impugned goods and vehicle, claiming the goods in the conveyance RJ-19-GF-6348. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand of short paid IGST amounting to Rs. 67,637/- also imposed equal penalty of 100% IGST amounting to Rs. 67,637/-, and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 67,637/- on impugned goods and Rs. 67,637/- on conveyance used to transport of impugned goods. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing of tax, penalty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on presumptions basis. (iv) that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, it is not justified by the adjudicating authority to levy tax Rs. 44,461/- + 67,637/- Total Rs. 1,12,098/-, Penalty of Rs. 67,637/- and fines of Rs. 1,35,274/- whereby the supply is out to out State by the supplier and neither the consignor nor consignee belongs to the State of Rajasthan. In the above context, the appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under : (i) Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay - AIR 1953 SC 325 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1284 (S.C.), (ii) S.A. International v. Collector of Customs - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 445 (Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional written submission dated 12-2-2020 and requested to decide the case. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and detailed submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum as well as additional written submission dated 12-2-2020 at the time of personal hearing. 6. I find that the department has made the case against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had cleared the goods "on considerably lesser value keeping in view the MRP marked on goods with intent to evade tax" and the total value of goods has arrived at Rs. 6,22,767/- on the basis of MRP on which GST payable is Rs. 1,12,098/-. Whereas, as per invoice available with the person-in charge/driver of conveyance the total value of goods is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply". In the instant case before me nothing was brought on record by the adjudicating authority to substantiate that the appellant has undervalued the goods and value declared by the appellant is not a true value in terms of Section 15(1) of CGST Act, 2017. No investigation was made by the concerned authority and simply on the basis of MRP the case was made for undervaluation. In GST law there is no provisions for determination of value on the basis of MRP. Therefore, the order passed by the adjudicating authority is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
