9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, there is a contravention of the Central Excise Rules and the excisable goods so manufactured are liable for confiscation under Ruled 173Q(1)(c) as existing at that time. Section 11AC was not in existence at the time of this manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. Therefore, the absence of the condition of Section 11AC will not have any effect on the confiscation of the goods. Order of confiscation of the impugned cars and the consequential imposition of redemption fine and penalty upheld. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the very beginning the appellant had no intention to evade any payment of duty. After this letter, there was some correspondence between the Central Excise authorities and the appellant and finally the goods were seized by the department, which resulted in the show-cause notice and the adjudication order. He submitted that since he himself had intimated the department about the activity and had no mala fide intention or mens rea to evade any excise duty, the goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. He relied upon the following case law in this regard:- (i) Extrusion vs. CC, Calcutta 1994 (70) ELT 52 (Cal.), wherein it was held that mens rea and conduct of the party and the attending extenuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of the Central Excise Rules could be subject to the conditions provided in Section 11AC of the Act. The learned SDR submitted that the learned Member (Judicial) has given finding only on the point that in absence of the conditions of Section 11AC, i.e. fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of fact or violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, confiscation is not justified, as the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the activity undertaken by him does not amount to manufacture. The learned SDR contended that Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act came into existence only on 28th September 1996 whereas the present case pertains to the period prior to this period. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mponent parts amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise of the Act and excise duty is liable to be charged on such assembly. There is no dispute on this point that the activity of assembling of the car by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Once a manufacturing activity is undertaken for manufacture of excisable goods, the manufacturer is required to obtain a licence from the Central Excise department under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and if any manufacturing activity is undertaken without a licence from the department, there is a contravention of the Central Excise Rules and the excisable goods so manufactured are liable for confiscation under Ruled 173Q(1)(c) as existing at that time, which is reproduced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
