https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214111 Assembly of cars from component parts was treated as manufacture of a distinct excisable commodity, which required a licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. Because the appellant carried out unlicensed manufacture, the case fell within Rule 173Q(1)(c), under which the goods were liable to confiscation and the manufacturer liable to penalty. The later introduction of Section 11AC was irrelevant to liability for the earlier period, and arguments based on bona fide belief or absence of mens rea were distinguished on the facts. The confiscation of the cars, along with redemption fine and penalty, was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214111 Assembly of cars from component parts was treated as manufacture of a distinct excisable commodity, which required a licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. Because the appellant carried out unlicensed manufacture, the case fell within Rule 173Q(1)(c), under which the goods were liable to confiscation and the manufacturer liable to penalty. The later introduction of Section 11AC was irrelevant to liability for the earlier period, and arguments based on bona fide belief or absence of mens rea were distinguished on the facts. The confiscation of the cars, along with redemption fine and penalty, was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214111