Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Goods in transit— In the instant case, a conveyance was intercepted in movement on the ground that the Valid E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception.
The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception and cleared impugned goods without e way bill and the person-in-charge of the vehicle provided an E-way Bill at the physical verification stage.
Held that— hough the appellant has made a error in mentioning the vehicle number they himself admitted that due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter they could not change the vehicle number. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.
I hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and allow the appeal filed by the appellant. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the appellant.
Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Goods in transit— In the instant case, a conveyance was intercepted in movement on the ground that the Valid E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception.
The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception and cleared impugned goods without e way bill and the person-in-charge of the vehicle provided an E-way Bill at the physical verification stage.
Held that— hough the appellant has made a error in mentioning the vehicle number they himself admitted that due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter they could not change the vehicle number. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.
I hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and allow the appeal filed by the appellant. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the appellant.