Since the goods has already been ordered to release the said seized goods by the adjudicating authority therefore the fine under Section 130 (2) in lieu of confiscation of the said released goods will be imposed.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Confiscation of goods — The appellant department filed appeal on the ground that the adjudicating authority has erred in holding the seized goods to be released as the same is not liable to confiscation. The appellant submitted that the taxpayer/assessee has failed to maintain the accounts of stocks in respect of goods received and supplied by him for long time. The respondent/ assessee submitted that the stock found during search were not excess/unaccounted stock as alleged. Rather the stock found was slightly short than the book stock which was due to the reason of inaccurate stock taking/manufacturing process loss. At the time of search proceedings merely his books of account were incomplete as the entry related to the production etc., were pending to be made. The adjudicating authority after verification of books of accounts and satisfied with the position of books of stock, released the goods. The authority observed that the Manager of the Firm inter alia admitted the clandestine clearance from the factory. The partner of the Firm has also admitted non maintenance of records. The adjudicating authority’s findings are based on the submission of respondent/assessee only and he ignored the statement of employees of the Firm. In the various Supreme Court judgments it is clear that the statement recorded before Tax Authority is merely not a statement recorded before Police Officer but it is a piece of evidence. The adjudicating authority has erred by holding that the seized goods are not liable for confiscation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order in original by the adjudicating authority and ordered confiscation of the seized goods and imposed penalties.