2006 (7) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n terms of provisions to Section 11A of CE Act and penalty had also been imposed on the company and the authorized signatory. The assessee was able to get evidence to show that only one machine could function at one time on account of power supply. The certificate was issued by Assistant Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. (earlier known as Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board). The Commissioner after detailed examination of the certificate accepted the assessee's contention that although two machines had been installed but they were not functioning simultaneously. Only one machine was working at a time and the production was from only one machine. The finding recorded by the Commissioner in Para 9 of the impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....achines is unfair for the simple reason that usage of two machines one at a time would not result in double production as would be possible if two machines were used at a time simultaneously. I am therefore convinced that payment of duty by the appellants only on one installed machine @ Rs. 10,000/ - per month during the period from December 2001 to November 2002 was proper. The confirmation of the duty demanded on the second machine for the said period is not justified for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the confirmation of payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 on the appellants and the imposition of personal pen....