Since there was excess of stock of raw material and finished goods at the time of physically stock verification during search, the appellant have contravened the provisions of Section 35 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 56 of CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the said seized goods and accordingly imposed fine and penalty.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Search and Seizure —The appellant’s premises was searched by the respondent and certain quantity of goods were seized. After investigation, the taxpayer issued SCN on 19.09.2018 confiscation of the seized goods under Section 67 (2) of Act, 2017 read with Rule 139 of Rules, 2017 and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has vide impugned order dated 04.08.2020 has confirmed the confiscation of goods and imposed penalty. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order in Original, the appellant has filed the appeal on 17.11.2020. The authority observed that they did not agree with the plea that the records of goods were properly maintained/ kept by the appellant and goods seized were duly accounted for in their respective books of accounts. And uphold the order passed by the adjudicating authority as there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected both the appeals filed appellant.
Since there was excess of stock of raw material and finished goods at the time of physically stock verification during search, the appellant have contravened the provisions of Section 35 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 56 of CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the said seized goods and accordingly imposed fine and penalty.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Search and Seizure —The appellant’s premises was searched by the respondent and certain quantity of goods were seized. After investigation, the taxpayer issued SCN on 19.09.2018 confiscation of the seized goods under Section 67 (2) of Act, 2017 read with Rule 139 of Rules, 2017 and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has vide impugned order dated 04.08.2020 has confirmed the confiscation of goods and imposed penalty. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order in Original, the appellant has filed the appeal on 17.11.2020. The authority observed that they did not agree with the plea that the records of goods were properly maintained/ kept by the appellant and goods seized were duly accounted for in their respective books of accounts. And uphold the order passed by the adjudicating authority as there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected both the appeals filed appellant.