TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of confiscation of the impugned car and, therefore, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is correct or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant after graduating from the Tokyo University engaged himself in carrying out repairs of motor vehicles without the aid of power. The appellant had purchased chassis of motor vehicles in an auction from the Mumbai Port Trust and had imported some of the parts and components of the motor vehicles and some parts were also indigenously purchased. After assembling these parts and components and the chassis, the appellant had assembled or rebuilt automobile cars. These cars were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rea is to be established for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and heavy fine is unwarranted in face of finding of bonafide belief of import being legal. (iii) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 349 (P&H). In this case it was held that if there is no mens rea on the part of the assessee to clandestinely remove the goods, penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee. (iii) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J 159) (SC) . In this case it was held that no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breach of the legal provisions or where the breach flows from the bonafide belief. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the fact that the appellant himself had informed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 12th/13th July 1984 intimated the appellant that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. In spite of this letter, the appellant had not applied for a licence to manufacture the goods. He submitted that under Rule 173Q(1)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, it is stated that if any manufacturer, producer or a licensee of a warehouse engages in the manufacture or production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the licence required under Section 6 of the Act, then all such goods shall be liable to confiscation. He, therefore, submitted that since the activity was undertaken by the appellant without obtaining the licence, the case is squarely covered under Rule 173Q(1)(c). Once the goods are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer, producer, licensee of a warehouse, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater." This is also a fact that 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 in this case. 7. As ....