Appeal deemed maintainable within extended period, penalty modified, leniency plea not considered.

The appeal was deemed maintainable as it was filed within the extended period. The penalty imposed under the incorrect provision was modified to 50% of the value of the goods, amounting to Rs. 61,656, and the penalty already deposited was to be adjusted accordingly. The plea for leniency due to COVID-related financial crisis was not considered as there are no provisions for such leniency under the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 107(2) of CGST Act, 2017.
2. Proper imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed by the department beyond the six-month period from the date of the Order in Original. However, the appeal was filed in accordance with Notification No.55/2020-Central Tax, extending the filing period up to 31st December 2020. Thus, the contention that the appeal was filed beyond the period is dismissed, and the appeal is deemed maintainable.

Issue 2:
The respondent argued that due to logistical constraints, he was authorized by all owners of the goods to act on their behalf during the release process. The respondent submitted an affidavit supporting this claim. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed a penalty under Section 129(1)(a) instead of Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, resulting in an incorrect penalty amount. The relevant provision states that goods should be released on payment of tax and penalty equal to fifty percent of the value of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) if the owner does not come forward to pay. As the actual owners did not come forward, the penalty should have been reduced accordingly. The imposed penalty of 100% was deemed incorrect. The respondent's plea for leniency due to COVID-related financial crisis was not considered as there are no provisions for such leniency under the CGST Act. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, modifying the penalty to 50% of the value of the goods, amounting to Rs. 61,656, and the penalty already deposited by the respondent was to be adjusted accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised and provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case.

---